Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely,

Birmingham Corporation Bill [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Caledonian Power Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRAINEES.

Mr. DAY: asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons who have been sent to training centres from the Walworth Road (Borough) Employment Exchange for the three years ended to the last convenient date; and will he give particulars to which centres they were sent and for what kind of training?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): No unemployed persons have been sent to training centres by the Borough Employment Exchange during the last three years. The area for recruitment is restricted to the depressed areas.

Mr. DAY: Do they have an opportunity of going from the Walworth Exchange?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Recruitment for Government training and instruction centres is limited to people from the Scheduled Depressed Areas, and the Special Areas and other areas of high unemployment.

ASSISTANCE.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now able to make a statement with reference to the abolition of the household means test; and whether any reports on this subject have been received from the Public Assistance Board during the last 12 months?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a similar question put by him on 5th December last. As regards the second part of the question, my right hon. Friend has been in almost continuous communication with the board on this and other subjects, for many months past.

Mr. MANDER: When vas the last report received?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: My right hon. Friend has been in communication with the Unemployment Assistance Board on the subject almost daily.

Mr. MANDER: Do I understand that the board, which has been considering the matter for 12 months, is unable to make up its mind or to present the Minister with a report? Is it so incompetent?

Mr. LAWSON: Have any sample cases been taken by the Unemployment Assistance Board as to the operation of the means test in the country generally, and, if so, can the House have the result of the tests?

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Will my hon. and gallant Friend remember some of the suggestions I made to him during a recent Debate on this subject?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I can assure the hon. Member for Chester-le Street (Mr. Lawson) that everything which is relevant to this question has been considered, and every investigation that is likely to bear upon it in order to reach a satisfactory solution has been made. In reply to ray hon. and gallant Friend, I remember everything he says.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is not the House entitled to get an answer to the second part of this question, whether there has been such a report by the Unemployment Assistance Board?

Mr. SPEAKER: The House is only entitled to get the answers it does get.

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Minister of Labour in what towns and administrative districts are the able-bodied unemployed, who would normally have been receiving the new scales of the Unemployment Assistance Board which the Government withdrew last March, receiving a lower scale from the public assistance committee?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I presume the hon. Member is referring to unemployed persons who will not be transferred to the Unemployment Assistance Board until the Second Appointed Day. I am not in a position to say whether or how far they are receiving allowances lower than those which would have been made by the board if they had been so transferred.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is the Minister aware that in Yarmouth, for instance, they are paying lower scales than would be paid according to the first Order, and will he see to it that where that is the case the authorities are advised to pay scales on a level with those in the original Order, until the new Order is introduced?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: These cases are all dealt with in accordance with the practice in different localities, and I do not see that there is any ground for interfering with it.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Is it not a breach of the Stand-Still Order? That Order states definitely that they must be given the higher rate, so that if they are receiving less than the Unemployment Assistance Board scale rates, which were hung up, it is a breach of the law, and the Minister had better have those responsible summoned at once.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The hon. Member is referring to persons who come before the board for treatment by the board. That question refers to those who do not come before the board, but remain in the care of the public assistance committee.

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that hardship is being caused to numbers of ex-service men by reason of the fact that their pensions are taken into consideration when they have to seek assistance from the Unemployment Assistance Board and whether he will consider the introduction of new regulations permitting these war victims to enjoy the full benefit of such pensions as have been awarded to them?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) on 27th February, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is the Minister not aware that many of these discharged soldiers are getting very shabby treatanent, and will he not take steps to see that it is immediately stopped?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I cannot accept the contention of the hon. Member that they are getting shabby treatment.

Mr. GALLACHER: They are.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the Minister refer this question to the board?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I could not give an undertaking on that point.

SPECIAL AREAS.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: asked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken to bring to the notice of the large number of firms who have either failed to reply to, or answered in the negative, the questionnaire sent them by the Commissioner for the Special Areas, the importance attached by the Government to the co-operation of industry in restoring prosperity to these areas, and the regret felt at the poor response to the questionnaire?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: This subject was mentioned by several speakers in the Debate on 2nd March, and I think the views of the Government both as to the importance of co-operation with the Commissioner and as to the failure of a number of firms to reply to his letter were sufficiently expressed on that occasion.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: asked the Minister of Labour whether steps are being taken to comply with the recom-


mendation of the Commissioner for the Special Areas that employment for men aged between 18 and 21 who have completed a course at an instructional centre should be provided by means of national works such as the construction of arterial roads, etc.?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: My right hon. Friend fully agrees with the Commissioner as to the desirability of taking any steps that may be practicable to find employment for these young men, and special consideration is being given to the matter.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: When are we likely to hear what steps the Minister will take?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I cannot give my hon. and gallant Friend any particular date.

Brigadier-General SPEARS: asked the Minister of Labour whether the recommendation of the Commissioner for the Special Areas that simple medical treatment should be given to boys and young men who are prevented from benefiting by training schemes on medical grounds is being complied with; and, if not, will he assure the House that a decision in regard to this matter will be announced shortly?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Education authorities in England and Wales have power to provide medical treatment for juveniles attending the junior instruction centres conducted by them, and it is my right hon. Friend's policy to encourage authorities to make this provision. As regards young men my right hon. Friend is considering with the Departments concerned the medical services already available and the extent, if any, to which it may be necessary to supplement them in the Special Areas to fit young men for training. I hope that it will be possible to reach a decision shortly.

Miss WARD: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the consideration of this matter has been going on a very long time, and does he not think it is urgent that we should have a reply as soon as possible?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I realise that it has been going on for a considerable time, but no avoidable delay is being incurred.

STATISTICS.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: asked the Minister of Labour the average number of unemployed in each of the years 1926 to 1935?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply

The following statement shows the average number of unemployed persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain in each year since 1926:


1926
1,401,891


1927
1,111,771


1928
1,231,109


1929
1,230,164


1930
1,915,237


1931
2,650,461


1932
2,744,789


1933
2,520,616


1934
2,159,231


1935
2,036,422

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Minister of Labour in what age group the highest and lowest percentages, respectively, of insured unemployed persons are to be found, calculating the percentages in terms of the estimated number of persons in each age group?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: In November, 1932, the highest and lowest percentages of unemployment, as shown by the results of a sample inquiry, were among insured persons over 50 years of age, and under 21 years of age, respectively. The figures were given in detail on page 314 of the Ministry of Labour Gazette for September, 1933. Statistics of the age distribution of the insured population have not been obtained for any later date, but particulars of the ages of persons registered as unemployed at 13th May and 4th November, 1935, will be found on pages 42 and 43 of the Ministry of Labour Gazette for February, 1936.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is there any indication of any abnormal unemployment among people who are just above the age for what are known as the blind-alley occupations?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I would prefer my hon. Friend to put that question down.

BENEFIT (DISALLOWANCE).

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Minister of Labour whether the decision of a court of referees to deprive Mr. J. Callaghan, a Barry seaman, of unemployment benefit because of his refusal to pay a debt or part of a debt will be applied in all cases where a man is prevented from taking a job because of an arrangement come to between an employer or a group of employers and the parties to whom a debt may be owing?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The decision in the case to which the hon. Member refers was given on the facts of that case and in accordance with the provisions of the law as interpreted by the umpire. Other cases must be similarly decided, and it would be useless for me to attempt to say in advance w hat the decision ought to be.

Mr. GALLACHER: Am I to understand that this case was put before the umpire, and, if so, when?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: No, this particular case did not come before the umpire because the gentleman in question did not exercise his right of asking leave to appeal, and no appeal was made. The point is that there was a previous umpire's decision on an analogous case, and the court of referees was guided by that.

Mr. GALLACHER: Arising out of the peculiarity of this decision, will the Minister advise his representative who was responsible for the decision in the first place to put the case before the umpire?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: No, that would be outside my right hon. Friend's powers in this and similar cases.

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: Has the time for an appeal elapsed?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: An appeal may be allowed before the umpire six months after the decision of the court of referees.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is it not customary for the Ministry officials to take appeals to the umpire?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: That is a matter for the insurance officer's discretion.

Mr. T. SMITH: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that the anomalies regulations under the Unemployment Insurance Act have not been reviewed since 1933, that a case has arisen in which a married woman was disallowed benefit, not on the ground that she was married but on the ground of childbirth, whereas a single woman in the same circumstances would be allowed benefit, and that other grievances have arisen such as that of the dockers employed on the butter boats at Grimsby who have been classed as seasonal workers, he will request the Statutory Committee to review these regulations and make recommendations for their modification to meet these cases of hardship?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I cannot add to the reply to the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rath-bone) on 19th December last, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

RUTHERGLEN.

Mr. HARDIE: asked the Minister of Labour what number of workers have been placed on the Employment Exchange as unemployed through the closing of the Phoenix tube works at Rutherglen; and whether any of the workers so displaced have been offered work at Corby?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The works referred to by the hon. Member have not yet closed, but about 145 men discharged from them have registered at Employment Exchanges during the past fortnight. I do not know whether any of these workers have been offered employment at Corby, but I understand from statements in the Press that it is the intention of the firm to transfer there as many of their employés as possible.

SHEFFIELD.

Mr. C. WILSON: asked the Minister of Labour, for the last available date, the numbers at varying ages of the Sheffield employed and unemployed men, women, boys, and girls?

Lieut. - Colonel MUIRHEAD: An analysis by ages of persons registered as unemployed was obtained in November last, and I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT giving particulars for Sheffield. I regret that corresponding figures for persons in employment are not available.

Following is the statement:

The following table shows the numbers of unemployed men and women, in each age group for which particulars were obtained, registered at Employment Exchanges in Sheffield at 4th November, 1935:

Age Group.
Men.
Women.
Total.


18–20 years
1,086
562
1,648


21–24 years
3,185
791
3,976


25–34 years
6,547
926
7,473


35–44 years
4,987
446
5,433


45–54 years
5,238
333
5,571


55–59 years
2,985
126
3,111


60–64 years
2,501
69
2,570


65 years and over
33
2
35


Total aged 18 and over.
26,562
3,255
29,817

Corresponding statistics for juveniles under 18 years of age are not available in respect of 4th November, but at 25th November the numbers unemployed, registered at Employment Exchanges in Sheffield, in each age group for which particulars were obtained, were as follows:


Age Group.
Boys.
Girls.
Total.


14 and under 16 years.
117
191
308


16 and under 18 years.
136
137
273


Total aged 14 and under 18 years.
253
328
581

COURTS OF REFEREES (CLAIMS).

Mr. POTTS: asked the Minister of Labour the number of cases determined by courts of referees in the country for the latest available year; the number allowed; and the number disallowed?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: During the period 1st February, 1935, to 31st January, 1936, 410,000 claims for insurance benefit or unemployment allowances were considered by courts of referees in Great Britain, of which 112,428 were allowed and 297,572 were disallowed. The figures are exclusive of claims, by persons already entitled to benefit, for an increase in the rate of benefit in respect of dependants, and also of cases considered under the

trade dispute disqualification. They relate to claims, and the number of separate individuals concerned is not available.

EXCHANGE, BARNSLEY.

Mr. POTTS: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that men and women entitled to receive benefits from the Unemployment Insurance Fund on pay days and signing-on days have little shelter provided for them at the Barnsley Employment Exchange, and stand in queues for lengthy periods exposed to inclement weather; what action will he take to secure reasonable shelter for them; and is he further aware that the exchange frontage is so constructed that this could be done at a small cost?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Except in the case of sudden additions to the register of which the exchange has no warning, applicants are allotted times of attendance, and if they attend at those times there is no need for them to wait in the open. My right hon. Friend is in touch with the First Commissioner with a view to experimenting with some kind of shelter in a few selected cases, but I am not sure that this would be possible at the Barnsley premises.

Mr. POTTS: Is the Minister aware that when this exchange was built considerably more than £1,000 went back into the accounts, and in view of that economy will he not reconsider this request? It would not cost very much to cover the place. The points which have been put in his reply have been considered time after time, and it is no good putting them to us again.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I took the trouble to have a telephone inquiry as to the situation made to-day and I find that the system is working as I have stated in my answer. If people turn up at the proper time, the time allotted to them, there is no necessity for them to stand in the open.

Mr. POTTS: If you come down with me and watch you will see for yourself.

FAIR, WAGES CLAUSE (CONTRACTS).

Mr. MANDER: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a committee to


inquire into the present operation of the Fair Wages Clause of the House of Commons, having regard to the existence of certain imperfections and the importance of the questions likely to be raised as s result of the Government's rearmament scheme?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: As at present advised, my right hon. Friend does not think that it is necessary to consider the appointment of a committee as suggested by the hon. Member. As a result of representations made by the Trade Union Congress General Council, the operation of the Fair Wages Clause is under consideration, but I do not anticipate any difficulties in connection with the contracts under the defence programme.

WAGES AND EARNINGS.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: asked the Minister of Labour whether any investigation of the earnings and wages of persons engaged in different occupations and industries has been made since the earnings and hours inquiry of 1906; and whether it is his intention to institute a comprehensive inquiry into these important matters?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Inquiries into average weekly earnings in manufacturing industries generally, and some of the principal other industries, were made in 1924, 1928 and 1931, and similar inquiries, relating to 1935, are now in progress. In these inquiries information has not been obtained as to earnings in particular occupations, but particulars of the time rates of wages fixed by collective agreements, or by statutory orders, for workpeople in the principal industries and occupations are regularly collected by my Department and published in the Ministry of Labour Gazette and the Abstract of Labour Statistics.

COST-OF-LIVING INDEX.

Mr. WHITE: asked the Minister of Labour whether the cost-of-living index is still based on the information on family budgets collected by the Board of Trade in 1904 and the Sumner Committee in 1918; and whether he is collecting information with a view to establishing

an index more in accord with present day conditions?

Lieut. - Colonel MUIRHEAD: The weighting system used in combining the percentage changes in the prices of the individual items included in the cost-of-living index into a general average is based partly on particulars derived from the family budgets collected in 1904, supplemented by such other data as were available in 1914, when the index numbers were first instituted. The information collected by the Sumner Committee in 1918 does not form part of the basis of the calculations. No similar information is at present being collected by my Department, but the question whether a new inquiry should be made is at present under consideration.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Will my hon. and gallant Friend give the most serious consideration to a change in the basis, having regard to the fact that at least 10 years ago one of his predecessors said they would do it as soon as possible?

RONALD TRUE.

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he received the latest report on the condition of Ronald True, the ex-airman who was convicted for murder in 1922 and sentenced to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure at the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum; what was the last occasion and date this prisoner's sentence was reviewed; and will he give particulars?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): The last annual report in this case was received in June, 1935. It disclosed no significant change since the case had been reviewed in the previous year.

Mr. DAY: May we take it that the reports we see in the Press regularly about this man are incorrect?

Sir J. SIMON: I do not know what is stated in the Press, but what I have stated is correct.

Mr. DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that reports are appearing occasionally saying that this man has special treatment and gets various privileges?

Sir J. SIMON: I think the hon. Member may assume that he is treated, properly, but treated without any special privileges.

SKILLED LABOUR (SUPPLY).

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: asked the Minister of Labour in what section of industry there is a scarcity of skilled craftsmen; and why his Department rejected the offer of the National Council of Aircraft Workers to supply skilled craftsmen for any vacancies in the industry?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: In reply to the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 5th December last to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Mabane). As regards the second part, the secretary of the council was informed of the arrangements by which, in cases where vacancies cannot be filled from among the applicants on the register of an Employment Exchange, the branch secretary of the appropriate trade union is notified in order that he may advise any of his members who are unemployed, and may be suitable for the work, to call at the Exchange in connection with the vacancies.

Mr. SMITH: Is the Minister aware of the repeated statements made regarding a scarcity of skilled labour, and seeing that three months have elapsed since his last statement will he not re-consider his answer?

Mr. THORNE: Can the Minister tell us whether there is any trade or calling in which the demand for labour is bigger than the supply?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: In the previous answer my right hon. Friend stated that circumstances varied from place to place, but that a number of difficulties had arisen regarding vacancies for bricklayers and plasterers in many areas, and in the more highly skilled branches of the engineering trade, and that statement still largely stands.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.

Mr. LEACH: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider new legislation to give the victims of silicosis compensation based on full standard wages

and, in view of the incurable nature of the disease, that no deductions from the amount shall be permissible under any circumstances?

Sir J. SIMON: There seems no justification for higher scales of compensation for silicosis than for permanent incapacity due to accidents and other diseases.

Mr. D. L. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that the men who, it was intended, should receive compensation, get that compensation?

Sir J. SIMON: That matter is under the most urgent consideration and, indeed, was under review as recently as yesterday.

Mr. LEACH: Do I understand that the Home Secretary is contemplating fresh legislation on this subject?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir, the question put to me was whether silicosis should be treated, as regards compensation for permanent incapacity, differently from other diseases or accidents, and my answer was that I do not think there can be any good ground for selecting one disease as against another within the scheme.

Mr. LEACH: The Home Secretary speaks of consultations going on over this matter. Would it be right to assume that action will be taken when those consultations end?

Sir J. SIMON: Oh, yes, there will be appropriate action at the proper time.

Mr. TINKER: asked the Home Secretary whether he is in a position to state when the Departmental Committee he has set up to inquire into the Workmen's Compensation Act (Industrial Diseases) will make a report?

Sir J. SIMON: The committee which is inquiring, among other things, into the question of compensation for nystagmus and the medical procedure under the Act, has still, I understand, to take a good deal of evidence, and I am afraid I cannot forecast when they will be in a position to report.

Mr. TINKER: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the paper, Cmd. 5077, giving returns of statistics of compensation and proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, covers only about 70 per cent. of the cases; and


whether he will consider making it compulsory for all employers to make returns so that a more comprehensive examination can be made of the working of the Compensation Acts?

Sir J. SIMON: I am aware that many of the statistics relate only to the large industrial groups in which employers are required to make returns, but it will be appreciated that the Act covers practically all employment, including domestic service, and I do not think that the results of asking for returns from every employer affected by the Act would justify the great labour and expense which would be involved.

Mr. TINKER: Will the right hon. Gentleman make an attempt to collect this information, because workmen's compensation is becoming more important every day and the House of Commons ought to be in possession of all the facts?

Sir J. SIMON: I sympathise entirely with the general object of the hon. Gentleman, but we have to consider whether we can reasonably exact such details from every person, and afford the labour and expense involved.

CRIMINAL LAW (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1885.

Viscountess ASTOR: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that the sections of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, dealing with procuration of women for immoral purposes by third parties, specially excludes common prossitutes and women of known immoral character from protection against procuration, and even excludes them from protection against being procured by false pretences on false representations; and, having regard to the fact that all traffic in women is mainly a traffic in women of immoral character and that exclusion of such women from the operation of the English law against procuration tacitly permits traffic in them, will be undertake to amend the law so that all third-party procuration of women for immoral purposes shall be a punishable offence?

Sir J. SIMON: I am aware of the criticism which has been directed to the provisions of the Criminal Law Amend-

ment Act, 1885, that it does not extend to common prostitutes and women of known immoral character the same measure of protection that is afforded to women and girls generally; but if the Noble Lady will examine Sections 2 and 3 of that Act, she will find that it is not accurate to say that women who are common prostitutes, or who are of known immoral character, are excluded from any protection against procuration. The question whether any amendment of the law is required is under consideration, and the points raised by the Noble Lady will be borne in mind.

Viscountess ASTOR: I thank the right lion. Gentleman very much for his answer. Would he bear in mind the change of opinion since this Act was passed, and that now the State demands the same protection for immoral women as it gives to immoral men?

Sir J. SIMON: Yes, that will certainly be borne in mind.

ACCUSED PERSONS (BAIL).

Mr. JAGGER: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the numerous cases of refusal or delay on the part of magistrates and police in granting bail to persons bailable at common law; and whether, as such refusal or delay is an offence against the liberty of the subject, he will make such representations as will secure that bail is promptly granted wherever possible?

Sir J. SIMON: The powers of the police to grant bail are confined to cases where a person has been arrested without a warrant pending his appearance before a court, and I have no reason to think that they do not make use of their powers in proper cases. When a person has been brought before a court, the question of bail is one for the magistrates, and I know of no occasion for making any representations to them as to the exercise of their discretion in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISON SERVICE.

PAY.

Mr. MONTAGUE: asked the Home Secretary whether the new scale of pay has now been introduced for prison sub-


ordinate officers, under which the officers will lose on their increments sums varying from 4d. to 1s. per week; and whether be is satisfied that full inquiry has been made into the details of the pay of the lower ranks?

Sir J. SIMON: No such losses as those suggested in the question will be suffered by officers. I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the more detailed and technical explanation which bears this out.

Following is the explanation:

There is no foundation for the suggestion that, as a result of the introduction of the new scale, officers will be worse off than they would have been under the old scale. When a new scale is applied to officers receiving annual increments, it is the practice to adjust the incremental dates. As a result, nearly all officers will have their incremental dates advanced, and will receive immediately a proportion of the increment which, under the old scale, would not have become due until a later date. During the first part of the new incremental year, therefore, they will receive more, and during the latter part, less, than they would have received under the old system; but care has been taken to make these adjustments in such a way that each officer's aggregate salary for the year is either higher than or approximately equal to the salary he would have received on the old scale. I am satisfied that not only will the new scale improve the immediate position of many, and the prospects of all, officers, but also that the transitional arrangements have been made with careful regard for the immediate interests of everyone affected.

RIGHT OF APPEAL.

Mr. T. SMITH: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the setting up of an appeals tribunal for the prison staff on similar lines to that obtaining in the police, as the prison staff is a disciplinary body without trade union rights; and, if so, will he make the provision retrospective to cover 30th September, 1933, the date of the Oxford escape?

Sir J. SIMON: Prison officers have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, who considers the case afresh and

makes all useful inquiries. As in the case of the police, the final decision rests with the Secretary of State.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTORING OFFENCES.

Lieut. - Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: asked the Home Secretary how many prosecutions took place during 1935 for leaving a car on the right-hand side of the road, facing traffic, after dark or during foggy weather?

Sir J. SIMON: The Annual Return of Offences relating to motor vehicles contains statistics of proceedings under the general head of leaving a motor vehicle in a dangerous position, but does not further distinguish the precise circumstances of the alleged offence. The number of cases under this head which were dealt with by prosecution in 1934 was 2,069. The corresponding figure for 1935 is not yet available.

Sir W. BRASS: Does my right hon. Friend not think that this is really a dangerous practice, warranting police prosecution?

Sir J. SIMON: Of course that is a matter for the discretion of the police. My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that there is no specific offence in the act of leaving a car on the off-side of a road facing traffic whether before or after dark, so that that is the reason why these statistics are of a general kind.

Sir W. BRASS: Under the Act is it not laid down that persons can be prosecuted for causing danger to the public?

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Is not this an offence against the road traffic regulations?

Sir J. SIMON: I am only explaining the reason why the statistics of the Home Office deal with the matter in a more general description.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: asked the Home Secretary how many prosecutions took place during 1935 for leaving a car at the side of the road with the head-lamps full on?

Sir J. SIMON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which I have just given to his previous question.

ROAD SIGNS.

Mr. DAY: asked the Minister of Transport which of the highway authorities have had painted on the highways the words "Look before you cross," with a view to warning pedestrians of the dangers of crossing the roads; and what further action he proposes to take in order to have this warning to pedestrians generally adopted?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Captain Austin Hudson): Certain highway authorities have had the words "Look Right" and "Look Left" painted on the carriageway in appropriate cases, but I am unable to state at how many places this has been done. In view of the diversity of conditions my right hon. Friend does not propose to take any further steps, but has decided to leave the matter to local judgment.

Mr. DAY: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider having a circular issued to the various local authorities?

Captain HUDSON: No, Sir; generally speaking we do not encourage painting on the road because it takes the eyes of the driver off the correct place, and I think that other methods are more efficacious.

Mr. JAGGER: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman consider the possibility of simplifying matters by prohibiting pedestrians from going on to the roads at all?

MOTOR. ROADS, LONDON (COVERED RAILWAY TRACKS).

Mr. W. ASTOR: asked the Minister of Transport whether a detailed inquiry was made by his Department into the possibility of carrying the new arterial road through Fulham over the District Railway; and, if so, by how much did the cost of this scheme differ from the approved scheme when allowance for the compensation to be paid to property owners had been taken into account?

Captain HUDSON: As the matter is now before a Committee of the House, I do not think it would be proper for me to make any statement at this stage, beyond what my right hon. Friend said in answer to a question by the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) on 19th February.

Mr. ASTOR: Will the figures be put before the Committee by the Minister of Transport?

Captain HUDSON: The Committee will certainly go into all aspects of the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE.

STRENGTH.

Mr. BELLENGER: asked the Home Secretary what was the strength of the Metropolitan Police, both reserves and permanent, immediately before the reserve was disbanded; and what is its present strength?

Sir J. SIMON: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the release in 1919 of the re-engaged pensioners who served during the War. Seven hundred and sixteen such men were serving then, together with 18,637 of the regular Force. The strength of the regular Force is now 19,030.

Mr. BELLENGER: Has there been any increase in the strength of the force?

Sir J. SIMON: I am afraid that should have to have notice of that question.

Mr. BELLENGER: asked the Home Secretary what saving in man-power has been effected in the Metropolitan Police through the introduction of traffic lights and police boxes; and what, if any, has been the consequent reduction in the strength of the Force?

Sir J. SIMON: The installation of traffic light signals in the Metropolitan Police District has released 425 constables for other duties, and the authorised strength of the Force has been reduced by that number. It is not possible to give a similar figure in regard to police boxes, the introduction of which was only one feature in a general scheme of reorganisation.

PREVENTION OF CRIME.

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a recent case in London in which a man charged with loitering with felonious intent was acquitted by the magistrate and costs were allowed against the police; and whether, in view of this case and of the large number of other


similar cases in which there is failure to obtain conviction, he will advise the Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police that only officers of considerable experience should be sent out on duty in plain clothes or, in cases where officers are working in couples, that at least one officer in each case should have had considerable experience of such duty?

Sir J. SIMON: I do not know to what particular case the hon. Member refers. As regards the second part of his question, I would refer to the reply which I gave to a question of this subject by the hon. Member for the Central Division of Southwark (Mr. Day) on 6th February.

Mr. THURTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that cases of arrest of innocent persons should be kept down to the bearest minimum, and will he consult the Chief Commissioner on the point which I put in my question, as to whether inexperienced men are sometimes put on this work?

Sir J. SIMON: I have already given my attention to this matter, and very full directions have recently been issued by the Commission of Police under which every reasonable precaution is taken to avoid making arrests on insufficient evidence. The Regulations include the selection of men who appear to be suitable men for this work.

Mr. DAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the men must be inexperienced, considering that over 1,000 people were arrested last year as suspected persons?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir, I do not agree.

CHANNEL ISLANDS (POPULATION).

Mr. C. WILSON: asked the Home Secretary the population of the Channel Islands, and how this is divided among different nationalities?

Sir J. SIMON: The population of the Channel Islands is about 90,000, including some 4,000 aliens, most of whom are French.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (NORTHERN IRELAND).

Mr. T. SMITH: asked the Home Secretary whether, arising out of the

agreement with Northern Ireland on the subject of unemployment insurance, he will make representations as to the desirability of making a condition that all additional labour required in connection with Government contracts shall be impartially engaged through Employment Exchanges?

Sir J. SIMON: I am advised that no question as to the method by which employers engage workmen can arise out of the agreement to which the hon. Member refers.

UNREGULATED OCCUPATIONS.

Mr. KELLY: asked the Home Secretary whether he will extend the terms of reference of the committee investigating the conditions of young people in unregulated occupations to cover such employment in flats, service flats, boarding houses, and clubs?

Sir J. SIMON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answers given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) on 10th February, and to the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 4th March, of which I am sending him copies.

Mr. KELLY: May I ask whether, even at this late date, the Home Secretary will consider this point, so that these young people, many of whom are employed in these occupations, may be included in the terms of reference?

Sir J. SIMON: I should be very glad to take the opportunity of discussing the matter with my hon. Friend, and if he has any specific information I should be very glad to have it.

PHARMACY AND POISONS ACT (SULPHURIC ACID).

Mr. W. DUCKWORTH: asked the Home Secretary whether he will take steps to amend the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, so as to make it clear that it is not obligatory for garages and wireless dealers who engage in the charging of accumulators to be registered as sellers of poisons, in so far as such charging involves the use of sulphuric acid?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir. The sale of sulphuric acid in accumulators is clearly


exempted from the provisions of the Act Rule 11, and the Third Schedule of the Poisons Rules, 1935.

BOGUS CLUBS.

Mr. ALAN HERBERT: asked the Home Secretary whether he can state approximately what is the number of bogus or undesirable clubs on the register; what is the estimated number of persons who will be compelled by the suppression of these clubs to seek their refreshment elsewhere; and whether, to avoid overcrowding and discomfort on licensed premises, he will advise the licensing authorities that through the declared policy of His Majesty's Government more extensive accommodation will be required next year, and that the process of reducing licences should therefore be retarded?

Sir J. SIMON: I have no information which would enable me to answer the first two parts of the question. As regards the third part, I have no doubt that licensing authorities are aware of the intentions of the Government, as announced last week, in relation to bogus clubs, and will be able to form their own judgment on the aspect of this matter to which the hon. Member refers. I have no authority to issue any such advice as suggested.

Viscountess ASTOR: In view of the fact that drunkenness has increased by 24 per cent. since 1932, will the Minister take steps to see that magistrates' certificates are not accepted without very careful inquiries?

Mr. HERBERT: Is there any reason to suppose that the survivors of bogus prohibition have anything to teach this country in this matter?

WAR MATERIALS (SUPPLIES).

Mr. SANDYS: asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to appoint a separate Minister to be responsible for the supply of necessary war material?

Sir J. SIMON: I can add nothing to what the Prime Minister said on this subject in the course of the Debate on Monday last.

Mr. SANDYS: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the arguments in favour of this course are

receiving active and careful consideration?

Sir J. SIMON: If my hon. Friend will refer to the statement of the Prime Minister, he will see that the matter is already under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

DEMOLITIONS.

Mr. KIRBY: asked the Minister of Health whether he is prepared to introduce legislation whereby vermin-infested old bricks taken from demolished dwelling-houses shall be prohibited from use in the construction of new dwelling-houses of any kind?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): In view of the power conferred on local authorities by Section 82 of the Housing Act, 1935, to cleanse from vermin any house to which a demolition order or clearance order applies, before it is demolished, I do not consider further legislation necessary.

Mr. KIRBY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while local authorities are spending huge sums on the building of new property, there are many thousands of new houses which, unless special measures are taken, will be incapable of occupation by human beings by reason of their occupation by other creatures?

Sir K. WOOD: That question will certainly be borne in mind.

INTERIOR REPAIRS (BIRMINGHAM).

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: asked Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in the city of Birmingham there is evidence that incoming tenants of controlled houses are being called upon to sign agreements undertaking to carry out interior repairs; and whether he will consider the advisability of taking steps to put an end to this practice?

Sir K. WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to Section 1 of the Housing Act, 1925, which provides that in any contract for letting a house at a rent not exceeding £26, or £40 in London, there shall, not-


withstanding any stipulation to the contrary, be implied a condition that the house will be kept by the landlord during the tenancy in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation.

RENTS.

Mr. HARDIE: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that where houses have been decontrolled rents more than twice the normal are being charged, he will take steps to arrange for a method whereby those suffering can have some form of appeal?

Sir K. WOOD: My information does not support the suggestion that in general the rents of controlled and decontrolled houses vary to the extent indicated in the question, and I do not think that it would be desirable to introduce legislation for the purpose of re-imposing control on decontrolled houses.

Mr. HARDIE: Since the right hon. Gentleman has no information on the subject, would he meet people, including myself, who have been treated in the way stated in the question; and would he take that as evidence of the state of affairs that exists to-day?

Sir K. WOOD: I should naturally take any statement of the hon. Gentleman, but my reply says that my information does not support the suggestion that there is ally such general variation in rents. I am dealing with the general question, but in any event I do not think it is advisable to introduce legislation for the purpose of re-imposing control in the case of decontrolled houses.

Mr. MARKLEW: Would the Minister be good enough to indicate the source of his information, because it is obviously contrary to that of all who have had experience of public administration?

Sir K. WOOD: I do not want to be misunderstood. I am not disputing that there may be a number of cases, but I have to weigh the disadvantages and the advantages, and I think that those interested in the matter will agree that there would be considerable disadvantages in now re-imposing control on decontrolled houses.

OPEN SPACES (GREATER LONDON).

Mr. CROWDER: asked the Minister of Health the number of open spaces which have been acquired by local authorities in pursuance of the campaign to establish a green belt around London; and whether there are any local authorities concerned which have not taken any action on the subject?

Sir K. WOOD: I regret that the information sought is not in my possession. During the last four years, local authorities in the Greater London Area have been authorized by my Department to acquire 6,556 acres of land for public open spaces or playing fields.

Mr. ASTOR: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider what steps can be taken to preserve Ranelagh as an open space?

Sir K. WOOD: Ranclagh is in private ownership, and can only be kept. as an open space if the Owners choose to dedicate it as such, or if building is prohibited under the planning scheme now in course of preparation and compensation paid, or if it is acquired as a public open space. As far as I am aware, it is not suggested either that compensation should be paid from public funds to preserve the grounds for the use of the club, or that the whole of the grounds should be acquired for the use of the public. My hon. Friend will be aware that the owners at present intend to keep open the central 30 acres, and they have entered into an agreement with the Barnes Borough Council giving the latter an option to purchase these acres if at any time building is threatened.

Mr. ASTOR: Is it not the intention of the Minister to ensure that existing open spaces in London shall not be built over?

Sir K. WOOD: I could not go as far as that.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in Great Britain insured under the National Health Insurance Act, excluding, however, all persons who, though still counted as insured, are no longer in employment or seeking employment; and whether he will state how this total compares to that of ten years ago?

Sir K. WOOD: The number of insured persons under the age of 65 was, on the 31st December, 1934, 17,181,000, and on the 31st December, 1928, 16,659,000. Prior to 1928 the liability to pay contributions under the National Health Insurance Acts did not cease until the attainment of age 70, so that figures for any earlier date do not afford a useful basis of comparison. No statistics are available as to the number of insured persons who are no longer in employment or seeking employment.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

MENTAL DEFECTIVES.

Mr. SORENSEN: asked the Minister of Health the number of mental defectives in England and Wales during the last week in 1935; how many of these were in institutions; and how many had been recommended for beds but for whom there was no accommodation?

Sir K. WOOD: The figures showing the position at the end of 1935 are not yet complete, but on the 1st January, 1935, the number of mental defectives in England and Wales ascertained by local authorities under the Mental Deficiency Acts was 110,530, of whom 37,987 were in institutions. With regard to the last part of the question, on the date mentioned there were 2,802 patients awaiting removal to institutions, but, in the meantime, receiving statutory supervision at the hands of the local authorities.

Mr. SORENSEN: May I ask what steps the right hon. Gentleman is taking in order to induce the responsible authorities to make provision for these unfortunate people?

Sir K. WOOD: I think that for the most part the local authorities are endeavouring to carry out their duties. The hon. Gentleman will see that I have said in my answer that, where patients have to wait for treatment, other steps are taken.

Mr. SORENSEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these local authorities desire to build further accommodation, but cannot do so because of financial difficulties; and will he further assist them in that direction?

Sir K. WOOD: That is a very broad question. If the hon. Gentleman has any

particular case in mind, I should be glad to look into it.

Mr. SORENSEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to individual cases, or to institutions?

Sir K. WOOD: Whatever information the hon. Gentleman has, I shall be glad to receive it.

BURNING PIT HEAPS.

Mr. HOLLAND: asked the Minister of Health, in view of the increasing number of burning pit heaps in mining areas which prove to be a nuisance and a danger to public health, what further steps he intends to take, in conjunction with local authorities, to punish offenders and put an end to this evil?

Sir K. WOOD: I am not aware of the increase to which the hon. Member refers, or that any further steps in addition to the action now taken by local authorities are practicable. The hon. Member will appreciate that the technical difficulties of the abatement of a nuisance arising from burning pit heaps are frequently considerable.

Mr. T. SMITH: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are general complaints about these heaps, and will he not expedite as far as possible the Bill that has been brought in by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker)?

Sir K. WOOD: I think the real difficulty is, as I have endeavoured to explain in my answer, the adoption of a practical remedy. It is not so much a question of legislation as of finding some practical means for dealing with these heaps.

Mr. PALING: Are any steps being taken to find a solution of these technical difficulties?

Sir K. WOOD: Yes; I think the local authorities are constantly trying to overcome them.

Mr. D. L. DAVIES: Does not the practical remedy lie in keeping the rubbish underground rather than bringing it to the surface?

ALUMINIUM COOKING UTENSILS.

Mr. HARDIE: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the doubt still existing regarding the use of


aluminium cooking utensils and the conflicting opinions given by various authorities, he will have a statement made by the men so qualified in his Department and have such made public?

Sir K. WOOD: A report on this subject by an officer of my Department was published in October last. I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. HARDIE: May I point out that, while that was done at that period, the public have not been reached by it? It is true that a great deal of discussion has taken place between eminent medical men, but would it not be better that the public should hear from the Ministry of Health direct which is right and which is wrong?

WATER SUPPLY (HALTWISTLE).

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: asked the Minister of Health whether he has now received the report of the engineer on the Haltwhistle water scheme; whether the latter considers the scheme to be sound and feasible; and whether any alternative system of supply has been examined at the Ministry and, if so, what is the result of this examination?

Sir K. WOOD: The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the last part, I am not satisfied that the yield of the alternative supply from springs which has been examined would be sufficient to provide an adequate supply at all times.

BLIND PERSONS (GUIDE DOGS).

Lieut. - Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that a centre exists at New Brighton for the training of guide dogs for the blind; and whether he is willing to assist in the provision of these dogs for blind persons?

Sir K. WOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The question of assisting in the provision of these dogs for blind persons is one for the consideration of the appropriate voluntary agencies and local authorities, and I should be prepared to give any approval that might be necessary to enable a local authority to grant such assistance in suitable cases.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any financial assistance as well?

Sir K. WOOD: I have answered the question on the Paper.

WEAVERS AND SPINNERS' WAGES.

Mr. TINKER: asked the Minister of Health whether he is, or will be, in consultation with the Minister of Labour on the question of subsidising the low wages paid to the under-employed weavers and spinners of Lancashire; and what is the position in regard to it?

Sir K. WOOD: I have been in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour on this matter and I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a letter which I recently caused to be addressed to the Lancashire County Council.

Mr. TINKER: Are steps being taken to improve their position

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Member had better read my reply.

Mr. LEACH: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a Bill upstairs that provides for subsidising their employers?

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (COALCONTRACTS).

Mr. HOLLAND: asked the Minister of Health whether he is satisfied that local authorities, who are now paying the increased price for their coal supplies, do in fact take steps to ensure that their orders for coal are so placed that the increase is passed on to the miners in the form of wages?

Sir K. WOOD: My sanction, in so far as it is required, to local authorities to pay an increased price for coal supplied under existing contracts has been given on the condition that the whole of the increase will be utilised for the payment of increased wages to the miners. I have no reason to suppose that this condition will not be observed, and it will be for the district auditor to see that the necessary guarantees from contractors have been obtained.

WIDOWS' PENSIONS

Mr. POTTS: asked the Minister of Health whether the explanatory leaflet, W.P. 4, is still issued to applicants under the provisions of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925; is he aware that no reference was made therein to the fact that widows without children whose husbands died since 4th January, 1926, are entitled to benefit; and will he take steps to so amend and issue the leaflet as to convey such information to applicants?

Sir K. WOOD: Leaflet W.P. 4 became obsolete in 1931, and the appropriate leaflet is now W.P. 6B, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member. There is nothing in this leaflet which suggests that it is a. condition of the award of pensions to this class of widows that there should be a child.

ROAD MAINTENANCE, FALMOUTH.

Mr. STEPHEN: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that out of the local rates the Falmouth Town Council has repaired and maintained, since May, 1933, Castle Drive, a road which has not yet been adopted as a public road repairable by the inhabitants at large; under what authority has this expenditure been incurred; and whether the owners of the road will be called upon to repay the corporation for this expenditure or what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir K. WOOD: The road to which the hon. Member refers was, I understand, acquired from the War Office together with certain adjacent lands in 1932 on condition that the road would be maintained as a public road by the town council at their own expense. The authority for the expenditure is the Public Health Act, 1875, which enables local authorities to acquire and maintain public walks and pleasure grounds. The third part of the question does not arise.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX

ALIENS.

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, with a view to preventing evasion of Income Tax, he will introduce legislation

on the lines of Section 143 (e) of the United States of America Federal Revenue Act, 1934, which provides that no alien shall depart from the United States of America unless he first procures from the collector or agent in charge a certificate that he has complied with all the obligations imposed upon him by the income, war profits and excess profits tax law?

The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): No, Sir. I may say that the suggestion made by the hon. and gallant Member has been examined on more than one occasion in the past, but it has always been felt that the circumstances would not warrant the introduction of legislation of this type in this country.

Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the effect of such legislation would be to compel these aliens to register a postal address in this country at which they could be found?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The matter has been more than once examined by my Department and we have always come to the same conclusion that weighing up the advantages and disadvantages, the scales were weighed down on the side of disadvantages.

Mr. DAY: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this system also applies in Australia and Africa?

BANKRUPTCY CASES.

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the total amount of the claims of the Inland Revenue authorities in respect of Income Tax in cases of bankruptcy since 1918, and the total amount recovered in respect of these claims from the earnings of the bankrupts subsequent to their bankruptcy; and what is the total Income Tax due between 1932 and 1934 but not collected owing to bankruptcy or liquidation?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret I am unable to furnish the information asked for relating to the amounts of Income Tax claimed and recovered in bankruptcy cases, but the hon. and gallant Member will find particulars of the amounts remitted as not collectible owing to bankruptcy and liquidation in the annual


reports of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, which come under the consideration of the Public Accounts Committee. For the years 1932, 1933, and 1934 the total amounts of Income Tax (including Sur-tax) remitted in respect of bankruptcy and liquidation were, in round figures, £890,000, £1,220,000 and £760,000 respectively. The total collection of Income Tax and Sur-tax for those years, before allowing for repayments, amounted to £367,000,000, £336,000,000 and £334,000,00 respectively, so that the remission in respect of bankruptcy for the years in question was approximately one quarter of 1 per cent.

ARMAMENTS MANUFACTURE (PROFITS).

Mr. THURTLE: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the declared intention of the Government to prevent the making of excessive profits by suppliers in connection with the re-armament programme, he will say what is the Government's criterion of excessive profit, stated in terms of net profit per £100 worth of material supplied?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The policy of His Majesty's Government is that, in cases where it is impossible to secure effective competitive tendering, contracts should be settled on the basis of allowing a fair and reasonable profit, having regard to the circumstances of each case, including such factors as the extent of the orders and a reasonable return on the capital assets directly employed. A standard percentage of profit on the production costs of the goods supplied would be found in practice to lead to indefensible results.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is very keen public interest in the matter, and will he be rather more exact in defining what he understands to be a reasonable profit?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that there is a good deal of interest in the subject, but it is not quite as simple as the hon. Member appears to imagine. It is not really susceptible of definition by stating a particular rate of profit. The assets on which the profit is made have to be considered, and there are many other factors which make it impossible to lay down any hard-and-fast rule without

leading to exactly the opposite result to that which the hon. Member and the Government desire.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: Is it not the case that fixing a flat rate of percentage would result in very abnormal profits in some cases?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is exactly what I intended to convey.

Lieut. - Commander FLETCHER: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the Treasury inter-service committee, what is the nature of the proposals to depart from the principles normally governing the placing of contracts which the committee is to consider; whether it is part of the duty of the committee specially to supervise contracts with a view to preventing profiteering; whether the committee will have any power to prevent profiteering in armaments manufacture; and whether he will make a statement giving full details of the committee's functions?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: A general description of the cases in which the principles normally governing the placing of contracts may need to be modified is given in paragraph 54 of the White Paper relating to Defence. In deciding what special arrangements are suitable, the committee will pay particular attention to the prevention of excessive profits; and the general responsibility implied by Treasury control will continue to be supplemented by a specific responsibility on the part of each Defence Department to ensure in placing orders that prices are fair and reasonable. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Treasury Minute of 4th March, to which I have nothing to add.

MALTING BARLEY (BREWERS' PURCHASES).

Mr. LEWIS: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will obtain from the Brewers' Society information as to the quantities of British malting barley purchased by brewers in the years ending June, 1933, June. 1934, and June, 1935, respectively?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received from the Brewers' Society the results of returns voluntarily furnished by brewers


in respect of the three years in question. As a table of figures is involved, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it' in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

—
Year ended30th June, 1933.
Year ended30th June, 1934.
Year ended30th June, 1935


(1)
(2)
(3)





Quarters.
Quarters.
Quarters.


Home-grown barley purchased.
…
…
686,732
872,976
941,268


Malt (made from home-grown barley) purchased or contracted to be purchased.
715,921
899,155
923,257


Totals
…
…
1,402,653
1,772,131
1,864,525


Expressed in cwts.
…
…
5,610,612
7,088,524
7,458,100


NOTE.— The 1935 returns represent 97 per cent. of the total barrelage of the country, as against 95 per cent. for the two previous years.

ARGENTINE RAILWAYS (BRITISH INVESTMENTS).

Mr. KELLY: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Argentine Government has legislated to reduce railway earnings to 1¾ per cent.; what amount of British money is invested in such railways; whether any approaches have been made on the matter; what action has been taken; and what effect this action has had on employment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The nominal value of British investments in the Argentine Railways has been estimated at £270,000,000. As regards the remainder of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Department of Overseas Trade to the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Liddall) on 2nd March, to which I have nothing to add.

PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION.

Mr. MESSER: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the principles of monetary control for equating consumption to production advocated by Major C. H. Douglas before the Macmillan Committee; and, if so, whether he will publish in full, as a White Paper, the views of the Treasury upon such principles?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that evidence was taken by the Macmillan Committee from Major Douglas and that the Committee did not think it necessary

Viscountess ASTOR: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, I think so.

Following is time table:

to refer to these proposals in their report. In reply to the last part of the question I see no occasion for adopting this suggestion.

DEFENCE SERVICES (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. MESSER: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the possibility of the anticipated expenditure on the defence services increasing the cost of living of the general community; and whether he is proposing to take any and, if so, what steps to prevent such increase?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no reason to anticipate the result, the possibility of which is suggested by the hon. Member, and accordingly I see no need for action in this respect.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, before any expenditure is incurred in furtherance of the policy of the White Paper on Defence, a Supplementary Estimate will be presented and approval obtained by a Vote of this House?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): As indicated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Debate on Tuesday, His Majesty's Government intend to proceed forthwith to give effect to the plans outlined in the White Paper which were approved by the House in the resolution adopted on 10th March.


Estimates for the additional provision required will be presented to the House as soon as practicable.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the statement of the Prime Minister that the vote at the end of the Debate would not be a vote to authorise expenditure?

Mr. MORRISON: I am well aware of what my right hon. Friend said. The House in that Motion approved the programme, and the Government are getting on with it as quickly as possible. Full control of the House of Commons over expenditure will be maintained.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Is not that a direct contradiction of what the Prime Minister said?

Mr. MORRISON: No. What the Prime Minister said was that the Vote of 10th March was not authorising expenditure. The proper time for the authorisation of expenditure is when the Estimate is presented to the House, and that will follow as soon as may be.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Does not this expenditure enable the Government to make a start with this programme, and is not that contrary to what we were informed?

Mr. MORRISON: No, Sir. I see no contradiction in that.

Mr. BENSON: How can the House approve of the programme when we do not know what the programme is?

Mr. MORRISON: The fact is that the House approved of it.

STEAMSHIP "QUEEN MARY."

Mr. THORNE: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give an assurance that when the steamship "Queen Mary" docks at Southampton, an opportunity will be afforded for Members of Parliament to make a tour of inspection before she sails on her maiden voyage?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: This is a question for the Cunard White Star Company, and it seems to me that the hon. Member's suggestion should rather have been conveyed to them.

Sir W. BRASS: Will not the right hon. Gentleman himself approach the Cunard Company, seeing that this House had a great deal to do with the building of the ship?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think this matter should be made the subject of barter.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

WAGES.

Mr. T. COOK: asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of counties in which there has been an increase in agricultural wages since 1931 and the number of counties in which there has either been a reduction or no increase in wages?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): Including decisions of agricultural wages committees not yet actually operative, the weekly minimum rates of wages for ordinary adult male workers in England and Wales at the present time show increases on the rates in force at the end of 1931 in 27 of the 47 committee areas. In six areas the weekly minimum rate is now lower than in 1931, although the reductions made in 1932 and 1933 have been partly offset by subsequent increases and in two of these areas the hours covered by the weekly rate are less. In the other 14 areas the weekly minimum rate is at the same level as in 1931. but in four of these areas the hours in respect of which the weekly wage is payable have been reduced.

Mr. PALING: Is the increase in wages as much as the farmers have received in subsidies?

MILK PRODUCTS (EXPORTS).

Major CARVER: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether there has been any increase in the export of British milk produce since the establishment of the Milk Marketing Board and what steps are taken by this board to deal with this matter?

Mr. ELLIOT: According to the Trade Returns, the total value of exports of United Kingdom milk products in 1934 was slightly less than in 1933 but more than in 1932. Comparable figures for 1935 are not yet available. As to the last part of the question, the Milk Marketing Board


have prescribed a special rate for the sale of milk for manufacture into condensed milk for export.

DRAUGHT HORSES (IMPORT).

Major CARVER: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the steady increase during recent years in the number of draught horses imported into this country; and whether, in view of the damaging effect that such imports have upon the maintenance of British horse-breeding, he can state whether recommendations will be made by him for the removal of horses from the free list of the Import Duties Act?

Mr. ELLIOT: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As my hon. And gallant Friend is aware, representations on the subject of duties should be submitted to the Import Duties Advisory Committee in accordance with the provisions of the Import Duties Act, 1932.

SUGAR INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION) BILL.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, before the Sugar Reorganisation Bill is passed through all its stages, he will investigate the possibility of working out a scheme providing for the equalisation of transport rates for sugar-beet with a view to its inclusion in that Measure, so as to avoid the necessity of lengthy negotiations which must result under the present proposals?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am satisfied that it would not be practicable to include in the Sugar Industry (Reorganisation) Bill provisions for equalisation of transport rates for sugar beet. As I indicated in the course of the Debate on the Second Reading, however, I propose to ask the Sugar Commission, which is to be set up under the Bill, to examine the question of the equalisation of transport costs in all its bearings.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman put an Amendment down in Committee?

FOREIGN BARLEY.

Mr. T. COOK: asked the Minister of Agriculture the quantity of foreign barley used for malting purposes for the last three available years?

Mr. ELLIOT: An inquiry is now being made by the Board of Trade, under Section 9 of the Import Duties Act, as to the production of malt in 1935, in which the quantity of barley of home, other Empire and foreign origin will be stated. Pending the results of that inquiry, I regret that I have no information as to the quantity of foreign barley used for malting purposes.

Sir EDMUND FINDLAY: Will my right hon. Friend make certain that the report is expedited so that Scottish farmers may be certain before the crop is sown what chance they have of selling the barley?

Mr. ELLIOT: I will convey that question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

STORE CATTLE.

Mr. HOPKIN: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the shortage of store cattle in West Wales; whether he has considered that such scarcity if continued will nullify his efforts for the improvement of livestock; and what steps he proposes to take to improve the store cattle industry?

Mr. ELLIOT: As regards the first part of the question, I am aware that according to the agricultural returns the number of store cattle under two years in Pembroke and Carmarthen on 4th June, 1935, was 89,400 as compared with 96,400 on 4th June of the previous year. With regard to the remaining part of the question I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member's question on this subject on 17th February.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

BUDGET DATE.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Deputy-Leader of the House what the business will be for next week; may I assume that time will be given for a debate on Foreign Affairs if matters arise upon which the opinion of the House should be taken; and may I also ask the date of the Budget?

Sir J. SIMON: On Monday, it is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on first going into Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates, and to


consider Votes A, 1, 10, 2, 13, 14 and 15 in Committee.
On Tuesday it is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on first going into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates and to consider Votes A, 1, 4, 3 and 8 in Committee.
Wednesday: Private Members' Motions.
Thursday: Report stage of the Navy, Army and Air Estimates, which it is hoped to obtain in time to allow the Third Reading of the British Shipping Bill to be moved at a reasonable hour.
Friday Private Members' Bills.
It is also proposed on Monday and on Tuesday to take the Report stage of the Supplementary Estimates which were considered in Committee on Thursday, 27th February.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken.
The Prime Minister has already informed the House that should circumstances require, arrangements will be made for a Debate on the foreign situation next week.
The CHANCELLOR of the Exchequer will open his Budget on Tuesday, 21st April.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Deputy-Leader of the House what business it is intended to take, if the Motion (Business of the House) standing in the name of the Prime Minister is carried to-day?

Sir J. SIMON: After the Motion for the appointment of the Select Committee to consider the Civil List, which will come first, we shall consider the Army Estimates. We are suspending the Eleven o'clock Rule in order to obtain all the necessary Army Votes which are on the Paper. We also propose to consider the Motion to approve the Irish Free State (Special Duties) (No. 1) Order which is exempted business. This Order must be approved by Monday, 16th March.

Mr. LEWIS: Is it to be understood from the reply of the Home Secretary that it is not proposed to take the Air Navigation [Money] Order, which stands on the Paper in the name of the Financial Secretary?

Sir J. SIMON: No, Sir.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."— [Sir J. Simon.]

The House divided: Ayes, 260; Noes, 123.

Division No. 94.]
AYES.
[3.48 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Davison, Sir W. H.


Albery, I. J.
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Dawson, Sir P.


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Butler, R. A.
De Chair, S. S.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Campbell, Sir E. T.
De la Bère, R.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir. W. J. (Armagh)
Cartland, J. R. H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Carver, Major W. H.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cary, R. A.
Dodd, J. S.


Apsley, Lord
Castlereagh, Viscount
Donner, P. W.


Asks, Sir R. W.
Cautley, Sir H. S.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.


Assheton, R.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Drewe, C.


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Duckworth, G. A. V. (Salop)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Channon, H.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Christie, J. A.
Dugdale, Major T. L.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Duggan. H. J.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Clarke, F. E.
Duncan, J. A. L.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Dunglass, Lord


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Cobb, Sir C. S.
Eales, J. F.


Belt, Sir A. L.
Colfox, Major W. P.
Eckersley, P. T.


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Bernays, R. H.
Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Ellis, Sir G.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Elmley, Viscount


Blair, Sir R.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S. G'gs)
Emmett, C. E. G. C.


Blaker, Sir R.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Blindell, Sir J.
Courthope, Cot. Sir G. L.
Erskine Hill, A. G.


Bossom, A. C.
Craddock, Sir R. H.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Boulton, W. W.
Critchiey, A.
Everard, W. L.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Findlay, Sir E.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Crooke, J. S.
Foot, D. M.


Brass, Sir W.
Cross, R. H.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Crossley, A. C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. At. Hon. Sir J.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Gledhill, G.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Cruddas, Col. B.
Gluckstein, L. H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Culverwell, C. T.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.


Bull, B. B.
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)




Granville, E. L.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Sandys, E. D.


Gretton, Col, Rt. Hon. J.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mander, G. le M.
Savery, Servington


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Scott, Lord William


Grimston, R. V.
Markham, S. F.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. V. M.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Maxwell, S. A.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Hamilton, Sir G. C.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Hanbury, Sir C.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Hannah, I. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Smithers, Sir W.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Munro, P.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Holdsworth, H.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Holmes, J. S.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Stourton, Hon. J. J.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Patrick, C. M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Hulbert, N. J.
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Hunter, T.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Stuart, Han. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Jackson, Sir H.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Petherick, M.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Pilkington, R.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Touche, G. C.


Kimball, L.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Train, Sir J.


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Ramsbotham, H.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Rankin, R.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Turton, R. H.


Leckie, J. A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Wakefield, W. W.


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wallace, Captain Euan


Lees, Jones, J.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Leigh, Sir J.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Wardlaw Milne, Sir J. S.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Warrender, Sir V.


Levy, T.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Lewis, O.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Wayland, Sir W A.


Lindsay, K. M.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Wells, S. R.


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.
White, H. Graham


Lloyd, G. W.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Loftus, P. C.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Rothschild, J. A. de
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Lyons, A. M.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Runclman. Rt. Hon. W.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


MacDonald, Rt. Hon M. (Ross)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Macdonald, Capt. P, (Isle of Wight)
Salmon, Sir I.



McEwen, Capt. H. J. F.
Salt, E. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


McKie, J. H.
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)
Sir George Penny and Lieut.-


Maclay, Hon. j. P.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Adamson, W. M.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Lathan, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Lawson, J. J.


Ammon, C. G.
Gallacher, W.
Leach, W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Gardner, B. W.
Lee, F.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Garro-Jones, G. M.
Leonard, W.


Banfield, J. W.
Graham, D. M. (Hamliton)
Logan, D. G.


Barnes, A. J.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Batey, J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
McGhee, H. G.


Bellenger, F.
Grenfell, D. R.
MacLaren, A.


Benson, G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Maclean, N.


Bevan, A
Groves, T. E.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)


Broad, F. A.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
MacNeill, Weir, L.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Burke, W. A.
Hardie, G. D.
Marklew, E.


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Mathers, G.


Cocks, F. S.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Maxton, J.


Cove, W. G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Messer, F.


Daggar, G.
Holland, A.
Milner, Major J.


Dalton, H.
Hollins, A.
Montague, F.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Hopkin, D.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Ha'ka'y, S.)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Jagger, J.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Muff, G.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
John, W.
Naylor, T. E.


Day, H.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Oliver, G. H.


Dobble, W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Paling, W.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Kelly, W. T.
Parker, H. J. H.


Ede, J. C.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Kirby, B. V.
Potts, J.







Price, M. P.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (k'ly)
Watkins, F C.


Quibell, J. D.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Watson, W. McL.


Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Sorensen, R. W.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Ritson, J.
Stephen, C.
Westwood, J.


Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Stewart, W. J. (Htght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Rawson, G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Salter, Dr. A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Sanders, W. S.
Thorne, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Sexton, T. M.
Thurtle, E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Silverman, S. S.
Tinker, J. J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Simpson, F. B.
Viant, S P.



Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Walkden, A. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Smith, E. (Stoke)
Walker, J.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.


Question put, and agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolution reported from the Select Committee:
That, in the case of the Cheltenham and Gloucester Joint Water Board, etc., Bill, Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with: —That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit.

THORNTON CLEVELEYS IMPROVEMENT BILL.

Reported, with Amendments. [Title amended.]

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

CIVIL LIST.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I beg to move,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider His Majesty's Most Gracious Message of the 11th March relating to the Civil List and other matters connected therewith.
In moving this Motion I think the House might, perhaps, like to know what has been the previous practice on similar occasions. It has been customary at the commencement of each reign to set up a Select Committee to consider what provision should be made for the maintenance of the dignity of the Crown. The Government of the day have then put before that Committee their own proposals for the purpose, and after the Committee has made a thorough examination of the proposals it has prepared a report which has been submitted to the House. When that has been done the House has been given an opportunity for full discussion of the proposals on the report of the Committee. I hope that the House will be ready to follow that procedure now. It will be seen that the Select Committee proposed includes many right hon. and hon. Members of long experience and great authority in the House. I hope the House, therefore, will be willing to defer discussion of this matter until they have the report of the Select Committee before them. Without more words I move the Motion.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I would like to move an Amendment in the following terms: "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records."

Mr. SPEAKER: The best thing would he to dispose of the first four paragraphs of the Motion and then for the right hon. Member to move his Amendment.

Mr. MAXTON: I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question. I do not propose to oppose the appointment of the Select Committee, nor to question its personnel. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman said that the House will have an opportunity of discussing the proposals. I want to ask whether the proposals will come before the House in form that will admit of full freedom of discussion and amendment, as in the

case of other Measures brought before the House?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, certainly.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider His Majesty's Most Gracious Message of the 11th March relating to the Civil List and other matters connected therewith:

Ordered,
That the several Papers presented this day relating to the Civil List be referred to the Committee:

Ordered,
That the Committee do consist of Twenty-one Members:

Committee accordingly nominated of—The Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, Sir Ernest Bennett, Mr. Benson, Sir George Bowyer, Sir Henry Cautley, Lord Hugh Cecil, Sir Austen Chamberlain, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Churchill, Sir George Courthope, Mr. Lloyd George, Sir John Gilmour, Mr. Greenwood, Sir Robert Horne, Mr. Lambert, Sir Hugh O'Neill, Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, Mr. Simpson, Sir Archibald Sinclair, and Earl Winterton nominated members of the Committee.— [Mr. Chamberlain.]

Mr. H. MORRISON: I beg to move as an Amendment, to add:
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records.
I move this Amendment for the purpose of putting before the House certain considerations which arose out of the previous consideration of the Civil List after the death of His Majesty King Edward VII. On that occasion there was a considerable amount of complaint as to the procedure of the Select Committee. I think it is desirable for the House to be clear on the procedure of this Select Committee and the adequacy of its powers before the Committee is finally parted with by this House. The task of the Select Committee is one of importance and delicacy, and obviously the Committee cannot discharge its responsibilities to the House unless it has before it all proper and relevant information which will make it possible for it to come to its conclusions. The procedure of the House in determining the Civil List and the format of the Civil List itself are of considerable


antiquity. I understand that there have been only three occasions in 100 years on which it has been necessary to make this provision, and that the form of the Civil List is still that of the year 1833. There has been very little change, except that the Master of the Buckhounds was abolished in 1901.
When the Select Committee on the Civil List reported to the House and a Debate took place on 22nd July, 1910, there was a very long discussion, and indeed more than once when the Select Committee has reported there has been a fairly acrimonious and not always pleasant discussion on what is obviously a matter of some delicacy between this House and the Crown. There was such feeling at that time that there were actually Divisions in the House, and in one case there was an Amendment moved to reduce the moneys to be placed at the disposal of the Crown. A Division took place in the House, and in fact, among the minority that sought the reduction were the present Lord President of the Council and the present Secretary of State for the Colonies. We are very anxious that such a disturbing situation shall not arise again. Obviously it would be a source of embarrassment to those two right hon. Gentlemen, not to mention others.
The leader of the Labour party in this House at that time was Mr. George Barnes, who will be remembered by Members as certainly a very moderate leader of the Labour party at all times and a responsible spokesman of it. He, with Mr. David Shackleton, who was another moderate leader of Labour, represented the Labour party on the Select Committee. Mr. Barnes had some severe things to say about the procedure of the Select Committee and the impossibility almost of Members properly to discharge their functions thereon. In the course of a speech to the House on 22nd July, 1910, he said:
The Chancellor of the Exchequer in a speech made last month, on 15th June, stated he proposed that the same course should be followed as had been followed on previous occasions of this sort, and that a Committee should be appointed. Full information was to be given to that Committee in order that it might come to a decision upon all the facts of the situation. I have to say that, so far as I am concerned, I did not get that full information, and I want to make it perfectly plain that

the House would not be justified in shielding itself behind the assumption that full information was given to the Committee, because as a matter Of fact that information was not given.
Mr. Barnes went on to say:
The Member for Clitheroe and myself moved for a Return at the first meeting. I got a fragment of that Return on the morning of the fourth meeting. My colleague was not there, and was amazed some days afterwards, on his return, to find the proceedings were all over. The hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles) also moved for Return at the first meeting.
I can only just remember Mr. Gibson Bowles by reputation. We shall readily agree that that was precisely what the late Mr. Bowles would have done at the first meeting. Mr. Barnes went on to say:
I do not know whether he got it or not, but at all events I never saw it, and, as I say, up to the fourth meeting we had not got that information for which we had applied. On the occasion of the fourth meeting the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought down a Memorandum, and as soon as I saw it was to be put through that day I submitted an alternative Memorandum. It so happened I had a rough draft of it in my pocket. I had not the slightest notion it would be required that day, but I put it in, with all its imperfections and blemishes, and to that Memorandum I adhere in every respect, excepting that in the light of some information which leaked out on the occasion of our fourth meeting, together with what I have gathered myself since, I should now propose one on a less generous scale of expenditure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1910; cols. 1626–27, Vol. 19.]
What we are anxious about is that the powers of this Select Committee shall be adequate to enable it to discharge its functions. It is, of course, customary, I think with the exception of a Motion of this character, to include in the appointment of Select Committees the necessary power to send for persons, papers and records. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer can give us some information as to why that is omitted on this occasion. The House will, of course, appreciate that we have no desire whatever to introduce into the discussion of this matter, which is of some delicacy, any unpleasantness or any difficulty, but we do feel that the Committee has a task which is imposed upon it by this House and that it should, if necessary, have power to secure all the relevant information required. At any rate we ought to


be assured that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself will take every step to see that the procedure of the Committee is such and the information before the Committee is such that the Committee is in a position with perfect confidence to discharge a task imposed upon it by the House of Commons.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The whole House will agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it is very desirable to avoid divisions or unpleasantness of any kind in a matter of such delicacy as that before us. I have not myself investigated the proceedings on the occasion to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, and I do not know what it was that Mr. Barnes sought in the way of information which he afterwards reported that he was unable to obtain from the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I entirely agree that it is proper that the Select Committee should have all the information which it may reasonably require, and I shall have no hesitation in giving the right hon. Gentleman the most unqualified assurance that all such evidence and such documents as the Committee may require will certainly be made available to it. The right hon. Gentleman asked why it was that the words of his Amendment had not been added to the Motion on the Paper. They are words which are commonly added when a Select Committee is set up. The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware that in the case of this particular kind of Motion relating to the Civil List it has not been customary in the past to insert these words. I hope that in the light of the undertaking I have given the right hon. Gentleman will not think it necessary to press the Amendment.

Mr. MORRISON: After the very firm assurance given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Ordered,
That Five be the quorum."— [Mr. Chamberlain.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1936.

MR, DUFF COOPER'S STATEMENT.

Order for Committee read.

4.13 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Duff Cooper): I beg to move, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
It will be within the recollection of the House that it fell to my lot only two years ago to introduce the Army Estimates. I then prefaced my remarks by attempting to give some account of what, in my opinion, are the purposes for which the British Army exists. A good deal has happened in the intervening two years, in the realm of politics and in the realm of science, but I think that the reasons which I then gave for the existence of the British Army remain unchanged. I then said that it existed for four purposes—to protect our naval bases, to police our Empire, to defend our shores and to provide a force which in an emergency may be called upon to fight somewhere outside our Imperial boundaries.
I said at the time, and I have been criticised for saying it, that all these functions were of equal importance, but surely where all functions are essential to existence there can be no question as to which is the more important. I am inclined to think that my critics have fallen into the error of confusing the meaning of the word "importance" and the word "urgency" It is just as important that a man's heart should continue to beat as it is that he should keep his head upon his shoulders. The urgency of one necessity, however, may considerably outweigh the urgency of another. A man on his way to execution would be foolish if he were to worry seriously about the state of his heart, whereas a man afflicted by heart disease would be equally foolish if he were to take elaborate precautions against having his head cut off. It is perfectly true that some of these purposes present a more urgent complexion at the present day than do others, but they are all vital to the continuance of our State.
The invention of flying, which has worked a tremendous change in every form of human activity and especially in


all questions of defence, has not, I think, affected the purposes for which our small British army exists so much as many people believe. One of those purposes is home defence. As the House is aware, not only do the coast defences represent one of the responsibilities falling upon the British Army, but also the land defence against air attacks has now been imposed upon the land forces of the Crown. In that respect the responsibilities of the British Army at home have been increased rather than diminished by the invention of flying.
There is, however, a school of thought, or a school of doubt, which holds that owing to this new invention it should be no longer necessary for us to maintain in this country a force for service abroad. I believe that in the eighteenth century it was rather one of the tenets of the Tory party to restrict all our interference in European conflicts to naval aid or to subsidies. Some people are inclined to return to that theory to-day, and to say that we should restrict any part that we may ever take—which God forbid we should ever have to take—in a great war again to the naval and air arms, and should maintain an army solely for police, Imperial and home defence purposes. This is a question so important that if it were decided in a different way from that which now guides the policy of His Majesty's Government, it would entail a complete alteration of all our military preparations from top to bottom. It is a question so important that I think it only right that we should consider it before proceeding further with our Army Estimates. It was raised in the debate on defence by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) who put the case very clearly. He expressed the doubts which exist, and although he did not himself go so far as to answer the question, he put those doubts in a manner which, I think, demanded a full reply. Those doubts have been raised in other quarters.
In the first place, it must be obvious, from our recent experience in the past year, that there must be some forces at our disposal which we can send out of the country in case of emergency. During the last six months, as the House is aware, we have been obliged, in support of collective security, to send out to the Mediterranean an armed force. The

money which that force cost the country was voted practically without dissent in this House, and the policy has Certainly met with general approval. I have not been pressed, and I do not expect I shall be pressed, to give any details as to the size or allocation of that force, but need make no secret of the fact that even the provision of such a force, for a danger that was not extremely imminent or extremely grave, has severely taxed our military resources. We must work on the assumption that it would be perfectly possible for two such emergencies to occur simultaneously in our wide Empire. Another difficulty of the same sort might very well have arisen in some other quarter of the world and we might have been called upon at the same time to send overseas another important armed force which, in our present condition, I will not conceal from the House, would tax our resources to breaking point. Therefore, that consideration alone—the possibility of two emergencies occurring simultaneously not only in different parts of the Empire but in different parts of the world—would be sufficient to justify the imperative necessity of maintaining at home a force that can be sent abroad.
I do not want to avoid the doubts which my hon. and gallant Friend and others have expressed. They are whether, if we are again involved in a Continental war, it would be wise for us to limit our contribution to the Naval and Air Forces. I can assure the House that if we could so limit our contribution, that decision would come as a great relief to the Army Council and to those who are responsible for equipping our Army. But there are no two opinions among those on whom these responsibilities rest, that we could never proceed on the assumption that in no future conflict on the Continent we might not be called on by the Government of the day, whatever that Government might be, to send at very short notice a well-equipped force to take part in modern warfare against forces equally well equipped.
It was said in the leading article of the "Times" this morning:
For more centuries than need be counted the destiny of Northern France and of the Low Countries has been held vital to the security of Britain.
That situation has not been changed by modern inventions. It was Napoleon


who said that Antwerp in the possession of a hostile nation was like a pistol held at the head of Great Britain. The result of new inventions is that that menace is greater than it was before, because to-day it is a double-barrelled pistol. It is not only a base for shipping and submarines, but is also a taking-off ground for aeroplanes. The invention of flying, so far from rendering us more immune, has robbed us of a great part of our immunity. The sea, as Shakespeare said—
The silver sea, which serves it in the office of a wall.
serves no longer in that office. More than ever we are part of the Continent of Europe; less than ever can we rely upon any special advantage from our insular position.
My hon. Friend pressed the point the other evening as to whether the question of speed had not materially altered the strategical considerations to which I have been referring, and whether it would be possible or not to transfer an Army to the Continent in time to be of any service. There are two answers to that question. The first is more practical and the second more speculative. The first is that if any Allies whom we might have secured were aware that such a force were coming, it would materially alter the whole of their action in the early days of the conflict and they would then be prepared to take a stronger and a bolder line, and to hold positions which they knew were shortly to be reinforced. The second consideration, as I have said, is more speculative. It is that these modern inventions—mechanisation, flying and the rest of them—have not so far produced a situation, and do not appear to be going to do so, in which land forces are put at a great disadvantage by their immobility. On the contrary, the mobility of the infantry is being increased all the time.
In the manoeuvres of the Russian Army last summer, a very interesting experiment was tried. A large body of troops with full equipment was transferred from one scene of the mimic war to another by aeroplane. A very interesting cinematograph picture was produced, and one could see 1,200 men descending simultaneously by parachute, and such heavy weapons as tanks, not to mention machine guns, being conveyed simul-

taneously with the men to the scene of battle. I do not pretend that we are as up-to-date as that; but I would suggest to the House that the tendency is to show that we have not yet come to the end of developments of this nature and that the result in the long run may prove that, so far from our being handicapped in any way by our position in the mobility of infantry, the mobility of infantry will be so enormously increased that the need for it and the efficacy of it will be just as great in the future as it has been in the past. That I would say is the strategic reason why we cannot give up the possibility of, and abandon preparations for, sending a field force abroad.
Then there are political and psychological reasons. So far as we can see into the future, if ever we are involved in a war again on the Continent, under whatever Government it may be, it will be a war according to the policy which now has the support of the vast majority of our people, a war on behalf of and in support of the principles of collective security, that is to say, it will be a war fought with Allies, and I hope many Allies. Certainly if it were known that our contribution towards such a war was to be limited solely to naval and air action, it would immediately spread a considerable feeling of despondency among any potential Allies. It would lessen the strength of that principle of which we are trying so hard to increase the strength, the principle of collective security. It would diminish to a considerable extent the authority of the League of Nations. That is a psychological effect.
One of the great horrors of modern warfare is that warfare to-day is no longer an affair of small professional armies, as it was in the 18th century. It is warfare of whole peoples, and it will always be impossible for this country and for any democratic country to enter into a war unless it has the whole of the people behind it. When the whole of the people approve of the principle of a war —most of us can remember when they did so—they will not be content, the manhood of the nation will not be content to stand idly by and watch other countries fighting with the whole of their manhood for a cause in which we equally believe. For the large majority of our young men, able-bodied and of military age, there would be no place in our Navy, and sufficient aeroplanes could not be manu-


factured or sufficient instructors found to fit them to serve in the Air Force; but I do not believe that they would accept the role of walking idly about the streets reading the news of how other countries were shedding their life's blood and throwing away the whole of their manpower in support of a cause which was ours as much as theirs.
I have attempted to convince the House that we must continue on the assumption that troops may be needed again to take part in a great war, if such a great war should ever occur, wherever it may be fought. The development of modern military affairs tends steadily in one direction. No serious student of warfare can have any doubt that in the future machinery will play a continual and ever-increasing part in military affairs. To many that is an unpleasant thought, but it is more than a thought; it is a fact, and a fact that nobody can get away from. The next war will be a war of machines, and men, save in so far as they serve to operate those machines, will be useless targets for the enemy. The great problem of mechanisation, to adopt modern machines for this fearful purpose, is the problem or, rather, the dilemma of being neither too soon nor too late in your decision. A new invention is produced which is going to have a tremendous effect. If you immediately seize upon it, develop it, invest in it before any of your competitors, you are incurring the risk that in a very short time, as usually happens, something better will turn up, some improvement upon it will be invented which will render what you have bought extraordinarily soon utterly out of date. That is one danger. The other danger is that if you wait too long everybody else may be equipped with this machinery before you have any of it at all. Therefore, the problem is to decide at the right moment. There is no problem, whatever the matter in hand may be, that is more difficult to decide than the question when to strike.
I have been often asked in the House questions by hon. Members who are, naturally and rightly, anxious about the adoption of an anti-tank gun, and I have been obliged in the past to put off these questions with the assurance that our experts are doing their best by research and inquiry to find out what was the best gun that could be produced. To-day, I

am glad to be able to assure the House that those researches have, terminated and that a decision has been taken. The length of the research has been very largely due to the fact that an effort was made to find a gun which could combine the two most desirable features, mobility and efficacy—a light gun, and at the same time a powerful one. The decision has eventually been reached that such an ideal gun does not exist and that therefore it is better to have two weapons, an anti-tank rifle and a small anti-tank gun, the gun not so extremely heavy that it cannot, be easily moved, and the rifle one which can be carried by one man. That is the decision that has been made and that invention has now been completed. We are satisfied that the gun which has been decided upon is probably the best in the world, and the issue of it to the troops will take place with the least possible delay.
It has already been announced that eight cavalry regiments are to be mechanised in the coming years. That is in addition to the two which have already undergone the process. Here I should like to pay a tribute to the spirit in which this decision has been accepted by the cavalry regiments concerned. There is no country where the love of the horse is more profound and more widespread than this country, and there is no army in which tradition and sentiment count for so much as in our small regular Army, composed of old regiments, with old traditions. Both these influences act together in the mind of the cavalry man when he is asked to give up his horse, because all the traditions of the regiment are bound up with their horses. It is like asking a great musical performer to throw away his violin and to devote himself in future to a gramophone. It is a great sacrifice for the cavalry men, but it has been accepted in the very best spirit, practically without. protest, by all the regiments concerned. I heard the other day of an officer who was particularly devoted to horses and had expressed in the past his greatest contempt for every form of machine. He was a fine authority on horses, and was much consulted about horses. Within a year of his regiment being mechanised he has become an equally expert authority on motor cars, so that he is now consulted by the same friends upon the internal difficulties of their cars. That is an


illustration of the spirit—the right spirit —in which these reforms have been accepted.
The House will also be aware that an announcement was made before Christmas that it has been decided to reorganise the Infantry Brigade, so that in future instead of these being four mixed battalions there will be three rifle battalions and one machine gun battalion. The rifle battalions will be armed with rifles and with the new Bren machine gun which is shortly to be constructed in this country, because we consider it to be the best light machine gun available. They will also be armed with mortars and with the new anti-tank rifle. The machine gun battalion will be fully mechanised, that is to say all the men will be carried, and it will be equipped with the new anti-tank gun and with heavy machine guns, carried in armoured carriers. Each battalion will include a reconnaissance company, which will be equipped with a new type of scout car.
Further, it has been decided to combine the present Tank Brigade with two mechanised Cavalry Brigades into a mobile division. The Tank Brigade itself will be refitted gradually during the present year with the latest Mark V and Mark VI type of tank, while the older form of tanks will be got rid of. In addition three new tank battalions are to be created, apart from the mobile division. One separate tank battalion exists already, so that each cavalry division of the Field Force may have a tank battalion of its own. So much for the mechanical side of the Army.
I will now turn to the more important side, the human side, because the best machine in the world is of no use unless it is manned, and manned with the right sort of man behind it. I will deal first with the recruiting position, which I do not disguise from the House is very bad indeed. At the end of the coming financial year, according to calculations, we shall be 10,000 below strength. That is a very serious matter. Some of the causes of it are fairly obvious. The first is one which none of us should regret, and that is, the increase in employment. When men can find a better job they are less likely to be inclined to join the Army. The second cause is also one which is not altogether a matter for regret, and that is that during the last, 50 years there has been a steady improve-

ment in the standard of living of the people, in the standard of housing and many other things, and it has not been possible, owing to the very strict economic, supervision under which we have been proceeding, for the Army to keep up to the general improvement in the standard of living. The housing of the troops, for instance, as I have said many times in the House, is still terribly behind what it. ought to be. We are including in the Estimates this year £500,000 in order to improve that standard, and in the White Paper which we have been debating a very much larger sum has been promised for the same purpose. That will do something.
Another small but very important reform is this. There is no better recruiting officer and no recruiting officer perhaps so useful as the contented soldier, what I should prefer to call the happy warrior. Hitherto our men when they have been on leave in their own homes have been granted what has been termed a subsistence allowance. They have been allowed, according to the strict rules of mathematics, exactly the sum which it costs the Army to keep them when they are in barracks. The House will readily imagine that the sum which you spend when you are keeping 2,000 or 3,000 men in barracks does not go very far when it is divided up among the men and each is given his share. It works out at 9¾d. a day for each man. The result has been that many men have come back from leave before their leave was finished because they found that they could not keep themselves on their subsistence allowance. I am glad to say that we are increasing that this year to ls. 11d., which is a substantial increase of more than one-half. There may be many other ways, and I am prepared to consider any other way that can be suggested, for improving the conditions and rendering more pleasant and more cheerful the life of the soldier. I read only a few days ago an extremely interesting article in the "Royal Engineers' Journal" for this month, in which some very revolutionary proposals were made. Hon. Members opposite may perhaps be surprised to learn that I am never afraid of revolutionary proposals. I often think that their adoption may prevent a revolution. It is said that modern man dislikes living in barracks at all, and it


is even suggested that it might be possible for soldiers, like other workers, to return to their own homes after their day's work, but I can foresee difficulties in putting into force such a proposal. Indeed, like many other modern proposals it is really reactionary, because in the past, long before there were any barracks, soldiers lived in lodgings and were summoned together by the bugle each morning. That was the real original purpose of drums and bugles. But even such revolutionary proposals are worth considering, and some good may be drawn from them, and I shall be grateful if during the Debate any hon. Member can make any interesting suggestions or constructive proposals for the improvement of recruiting.
There is another cause which, I am sure, has had a great deal to do with the badness of recruiting at the present time. There is an opinion held by some people that because war is a bad thing and peace a good thing, a man who is a soldier and who makes himself ready to take part in war is doing a bad act. I shall not weary the House by showing how many fallacies lie between that premise and that conclusion. To say that because war is bad, therefore the soldier is bad, is like saying that because crime is had therefore the lawyer is a bad man. I am sure that the majority of hon. Members do not lend themselves to that opinion, but there are extreme pacificists, and I see in his place the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury), who definitely takes the view that it is wrong in any conditions to fight. With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, his opinions are not widely held in the country. I do not think they are the opinions held by the official leaders and Members of the Labour party or by the Members of the Liberal party. When hon. Members opposite were in office they supported the armed forces of the Crown as they would support and maintain those forces to-day if they were in office again. Their opinions on this question do not differ from ours. They deplore and hate the idea of war as much as we do, but they recognise the sad necessity of maintaining our forces in a state of readiness to take part in that fearful emergency should it arise. I would appeal to them to use their influence to combat this idea, which

is the result of muddled thinking on the part of a number of people, that because war is bad, it is therefore bad to be a soldier.
To-day when there are still numbers of young active men unemployed and living on the dole, what better advice could be given to them than that they should join the Army? There they would find the opportunity of a healthy, open-air life. They would be well cared for and well nourished, and, in addition, they would have facilities for education. I do not know whether hon. Members have studied our educational figures. They show that the number of soldiers holding first-class and special certificates is increasing every year. Soldiers, after they have spent the active years of their life in the Army—a healthy occupation and also one that is helpful to the country—are more likely than others to find good employment. Our vocational training centres are doing a wonderful work. During the past year 3,065 men passed through them as compared with 2,536 in the previous year.
I should like to see these figures further increased. I should like, if it were possible, to take steps to increase the vocational training centres and to see more men passing through them. It is particularly satisfactory to find that, of the men who come out of the vocational training centres, over 76 per cent., according to our latest figures, find immediate employment. It does not follow that the other 24 per cent. do not find employment also. The 76 per cent. are those who find employment immediately and as to the others it is not always possible to keep in touch with them or to know what becomes of them. I suggest to hon. Members opposite and also to my own colleagues on this side that, in addressing meetings in their constituencies, they ought to do everything possible to encourage recruiting for the Army, on the ground that there is no better way in which young men can spend the active years of life and no way in which a young man is more likely to improve himself physically and mentally for the future.
So far, I have confined myself to the Regular Army, and I now wish to say something about the Territorial Army. Recruitment for the Territorial Army is an even more urgent and serious problem


than recruitment for the Regular Army. We are 40,000 under strength at the present time and, here again, I do not think the causes. are far to seek. Frankly, we have not encouraged the Territorial Army. In fact, I am afraid we have done a great deal to discourage it. After the War, when the Territorial Army was reconstituted, a bounty was given of £5 a year to all trained men and £4 to recruits who did their full military duty. In 1922 when there was a wild demand for economy that £5 was reduced to £3 and in 1927 the £3 was reduced to 30s. That could not be called encouraging.
Then with regard to the Territorial camps—and the, camp is to the Territorial the chief object of his existence as a Territorial—it will be remembered that in 1931 a decision was taken in the height of the economic crisis to abolish the camps for 1932. I do not apologise for that policy, because I was a humble Member of the Government at the time, hut we thought that the urgency and danger of the economic situation was such that it mattered even more than the future of the Territorials. It was natural that there should have grown up in the minds of the Territorials themselves a feeling that they were not wanted, that they were only being tolerated and that they were not regarded as a vital and integral part of our defensive scheme. But they are indeed an integral part of that scheme, and when I say that, I mean that they are so much a part of the whole that if they were withdrawn the whole would fall to pieces and we would not have a defence scheme at all. I am glad to be able to do a little this year towards improving the lot of the Territorials. In the first place, I am glad to announce that the full £5 bounty will he restored, which means that the trained man will receive £3 proficiency grant, 10s. for weapon training allowance, and 30s. for extra drills. A recruit will earn £3 10s. in all, and the concession made last year to instructors and specialists will be continued. A Territorial Army instructor who is also a specialist will be able to earn in all £6 10s. a year, in addition to the usual pay and allowances to which he is entitled when in camp, or attending courses. Further, the arrangement made last year whereby, in the case of a

certain number of drills, travelling expenses were paid, will be extended so that Territorials will receive for all their 50 drills full travelling expenses under the conditions already laid down.
There is another matter which has long been a source of discontent among the Territorials, and that is the question of the marriage allowance. In the Regular Army it is our policy to grant the marriage allowance to no soldier under 26. That will continue to be our policy and it is, I believe, a sound policy. We do not wish to encourage young soldiers serving in the Regular Army to incur the responsibilities of matrimony before that age. But the Territorial soldier is in a different position. We are in no way responsible for whatever responsibilities he may wish to incur. We are in no way responsible for his private life. He is his own master. All we know of him is that he is a man who is good enough to devote some of his leisure to serving his country. When such a young, man marries he, unlike the Regular soldier, is obliged to set up a home and that home has to be carried on while he is in camp. Therefore, I am glad to say that it has been decided that all Territorial soldiers who marry over the age of 21 will receive the full marriage allowance.
These concessions concern only the private soldiers and the non-commissioned ranks, but I felt that the picture would be incomplete unless we could do something also for the officers. I do not think that the majority of hon. Members have any idea of how great are the sacrifices which the young Territorial officer makes on behalf of the cause in which he believes. These young officers are not rich men. They are poor and, generally, they are just beginning arduous careers which make great demands upon them. They have small salaries and short holidays and service in the Territorial Army means for most of them giving up the whole of their holidays. What that sacrifice is especially to some of the young men who are married can easily be imagined. The pay which they receive goes a very short way towards paying their expenses. All that many of them ever hear of their pay is a letter from the Inland Revenue demanding the Income Tax which is due upon it. In addition the majority of young officers have to put their hands into their own


pockets before the end of the year to meet their expenses.
I have sought for some way of assisting them and the way which I have discovered is this. At present the sum of £1per head is allowed for officers while in camp for a fortnight. I am glad to say we are going to increase that to £5. It is not a great sum and nobody will get rich upon it, but I hope it will just make such a difference, in a large number of cases, that at the end of the year the young officer will not have to pay for the privilege of serving his country. Another discouraging factor which the Territorial Army has had to face is the fact that they are so ill-equipped with the necessary weapons which, in real warfare, they would have to use. There is nothing more disheartening to a man who is taking part in a field clay than to know that a white flag represents a machine gun and a green flag represents a tank and something else represents an antitank gun and so on. In those circumstances men have the uncomfortable feeling always hovering over them that they are only playing at being soldiers. I am glad to say, although there is no large provision in these Estimates, that it has been decided, in connection with the White Paper, to make a very considerable annual advance for the explicit purpose of re-equipment. It is intended, as well as re-equipping the Regular Army to improve the present inadequate equipment of the Territorials, so that they shall not lack the weapons necessary to make their manoeuvres and their exercises more of a reality.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Will my right hon. Friend say whether that means that the re-equipment and reconditioning of the Territorial Army will in fact be carried out pari passu with that of the Regular Army?

Mr. COOPER: No. If I were to say pari, passu, that would be deceptive. It is the intention to spare no time and effort to re-equip the Regular Army to the very highest and most efficient point possible, but while we are doing that, we are not going to lose sight of the Territorial Army. We are going to do what we can, without interfering with the re-equipment of the Regular Army, to bring the Territorial Army gradually up to date,

in order that they may not be quite unprepared when their turn comes to be fully equipped.
I would make an appeal, not only to hon. Members, as I have done, on behalf of the Regular Army, but also to employers in the country, who can do more than anybody else in recruiting for the Territorials. We have recently been set a very fine example. Lord Rothermere, a gentleman with whom I have not always seen eye to eye, has made the announcement that he will give to every young man in his employment who joins the Territorial Army two weeks' full holiday in order to attend his camps, and full pay, without allowing it in any way to interfere with such holiday as that employé would otherwise enjoy. If other employers were to follow that example, it would go very far towards solving our difficulties, and I sincerely hope they will.
The difficulties which the Army always has to face in this country belong to its history and have always been the same. The Navy has always made a stronger appeal to the imagination of our people. I do not grudge it; I do not wish to change it. The Air Force has all the glamour of novelty. The Cinderella of the three Services is the Army. She will never catch up in popular appeal or make up for the start which her rivals have had, but I would suggest to the House that there is a romance about the Army too, which they should not lose sight of in their recruiting endeavours. When you look at the map of the world and see how much of it belongs to the British Empire, and how vast and widespread are our possessions, and think that in all those Colonies, in nearly every Continent, there are small bodies of British troops doing their duty-, plain Englishmen, wearing the King's uniform, carrying with them wherever they go one of the principal English characteristics, good humour, I think the romance of the British Army becomes more apparent.
There is, I would remind the House, a particular kind of purpose which they can serve and which the Air Force never can. I would describe it as the presentation of force without the application of violence. I was told only the other day that in Egypt, when some excited students were noisily demonstrating, a small body of British soldiers, half-a-dozen men


with a non-commissioned officer, in the natural course of their routine duties were obliged to walk through the crowd. The crowd, impressed by their phlegmatic determination, calmly made way for them. They passed through without any disturbance and left behind them a sobering effect, which no tear gas nor bombs could possibly produce. It was just the same last year in the Saar. There an ugly situation was dealt with without a single casualty or unpleasant incident, simply by the presentation of force without its application, by the sight of these powerful, determined, but good-natured and friendly soldiers. Personally, I contemplate the vast conscript armies of Europe without admiration and without envy. I would rather have our two small voluntary Forces, the Regulars and the Territorial Army. These are great possessions. No other country has anything to show that is similar. They are a great and real possession, our heritage. I think we should be proud of them and show our pride by being worthy of them.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: I believe this is the third speech in which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced these Estimates in connection with the War Office. Each of those speeches has had its own peculiar distinction, but I think perhaps the most distinguished speech he has made since he came to the War Office is the one we have had to-day. If I may say so, I thought the first half of that speech, in which the right hon. Gentleman further underlined what he considered to be the function of the Army in the case of international trouble, will cause some controversy in Service circles generally, and I shall have to ask some questions of him later on that particular point. But while I think the Service Members of the House were gripped by his recital of the technical facts of the Army, the House itself really was drawn to him when he began to deal with what he described as the more human side of the Army.
I do not know whether or not the right hon. Gentleman rather unconsciously overstated what he wanted to say when he said that there were those in the general Labour movement who seemed to convey the idea that because a young man joined the Army he was necessarily a bad man. I feel that I must join issue with

the right hon. Gentleman upon that point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) can speak for himself, although he holds particular views of his own on this question, but I believe that, irrespective of his own views, he would agree in paying tribute to the conduct of these men. I would say that that was rather a far-fetched statement, it strikes me, for the right hon. Gentleman to have made in respect to that matter, particularly in view of the fact that there are a good many ex-service men sitting opposite him in the Opposition ranks. As a matter of fact, year after year one of the first things that I have done, when the Estimates have come out, has been to ask at the Vote Office for the report on the British Army. Last year I made the suggestion that the War Office might take some steps to illuminate the figures that one finds stacked under various appendices in this book.
I have always been proud of the fact that we could have such a large number of working-class men, because that is what the bulk of the Army is, living under somewhat abnormal conditions, segregated in the main from the rest of their fellows, who could conduct themselves on such a very high plane year after year. I question very much whether you could get 160,000 men in any other walk of life, in any class of society, that could generally show such a high standard of conduct as you have revealed in this book, and I note with pride, because, as I say, these are working-class men in the bulk, and some of them are from our own households, that it is stated:
that only six Penal Servitude sentences of three years were awarded…and discharges with ignominy have dropped by 42 per cent. since the previous year. It was found possible to close the Military Prison and Detention Barracks at Stirling in October, 1935. The only establishment of this kind now in use in the United Kingdom is that at Aldershot.
I repeat what I said last year, that for intelligence, standard of conduct, and general bearing as good citizens, we could not desire anything better than the standards revealed in this report concerning the Army.
The right hon. Gentleman was, of course, alluding to the question of recruitment when he spoke the words to which I have objected, but there is really


nothing the matter with recruiting. What is wrong is with the persons to be recruited. I have seen all kinds of statements—and I read the article to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded—as to what could be done to encourage recruiting. As a matter of fact what really is wrong is the physical condition of the people who ought to join the Army. There were 68,000 who offered themselves, and of those only 28,000 were accepted. This is what the report says:
In general terms the present situation is that if three men come forward to enlist, one is rejected at sight, the second is rejected for physical, mental, or educational reasons, and the third is finally approved.
I think that is a terrible state of things. I do not know who fixed the standard of what was called C.3 during the War, I do not know what the particular attributes or signs were that made a man C.3, but apparently the Army has no doubt about a C.3 man. He is "rejected at sight." We have been pointing out from these benches for several years now that the policy which the Government were pursuing as a whole was leading to just this kind of thing, and I will take the liberty to read a paragraph from the report of the Commissioner for the Special Areas which has been read before in this House. If this state of things is to continue, the Government can use what means they like for recruiting purposes, but until they deal with the social and employment conditions in the country, they will do nothing at all in reality to further recruiting. One would have thought that the Commissioner for the Special Areas had this point in mind. He says:
Many of these young persons have done practically no work; they have been brought up in a home where the father 'has been continuously out of work, and they have little or no conception that a man's ordinary occupation should be such as will provide the means of subsistence for himself and for his family. They have seen their own families and their friends kept far years by the State, and they have come to accept this as a normal condition of life. It is hardly surprising in the circumstances that young person, with this background and upbringing should be ready victims of all manner of demoralising influences. In short, these young men. present in my view the most tragic aspect of the problem of the Special Areas and one fraught, with great danger to the State.

I venture to quote that in order once more to draw the attention of the Government to, and to give point to, the fact that when we have asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to deal with a situation of this kind he has been a kind of iceberg. If he had only been as generous and warm in dealing with this subject some years ago as he was the other night when he was speaking on defence, he would have had the human material for defensive purposes without any trouble.
The Secretary of State for War is really asking an increase of some £6,000,000 on last year's Estimate. I expected he would have spent a little time explaining why, when the Government had issued a special White Paper dealing with defence and foreshadowing a great deal of extraordinary expenditure, there is an increase of £6,000,000 in these Estimates. I know that there is £1,750,000 for emergency purposes. Incidentally, the right hon. Gentleman made a statement about the emergency which led one to believe that the troops were sent away as part of a considered scheme of full security. I did not know that. I should like to ask whether the forces that were sent with their supplies were sent in consultation with the rest of the nations in the League of Nations, or whether there was a consultation with the chief nations which are members. The general impression is that these forces were sent and this money spent simply as part of the ordinary Imperial Defence, and that we took no note of anyone else but simply acted on our own initiative. Apart from the special emergency, there is an increase of over £4,000,000. In the Memorandum the right hon. Gentleman says that that is part of the general refitting foreshadowed last year:
The Estimates which I now present to the House provide for a further instalment of the programme for bringing our military preparations up to date for which provision was made in last year's Estimates.
That is true, but last year we did not have a White Paper on defence which foreshadowed past expenditure. I thought that, apart from the normal needs of the Army and the other services, we were to have Supplementary Estimates which would give us a sort of balance-sheet for the extra expenditure. I think that the real reason is that the War Office, in view of the coming expenditure, has taken the opportunity of grabbing as much as it can


almost without respect to the needs of other Departments. The abstract in the Estimates shows that the extra expenditure is spread over practically every item in the various branches of the Service. There is an increase of £2,000,000 for mechanisation. In Vote 9, page 187, there is an increase of £1,000,000 for motor-wheeled transport. That is in pursuance of the plan of increased mechanisation. I take it that this motor transport refers not to tanks or anything of that kind, but purely to wheeled transport which will substitute horse transport. It is remarkable to note, however, that there are still 13,000 horses left in the Army. One can understand cavalry officers having a strong sentiment for horses, but there is an item for remounts which leaves the cost for that item practically the same as it was last year. The remounts are still to cost £91,000 as against £92,000 last year.
How does the War Office square the fact that while there is an increase of £1,000,000 on wheeled transport, there is still to be the same cost for horses? The right hon. Gentleman has spoken about recruiting. It is interesting to note that there is little more expenditure on remounts than there is on recruiting, for which a sum of £82,000 is provided. Why is there this item of £91,000 for horses that will probably never be wanted? I do not take kindly to mechanisation. I do not understand its terms. I was familiar with the technical terms used in the private quarters of a battery subsection, but I do not understand the terms used in a mechanised unit. The War Office has a good deal to explain in these two constrasting items. If the Army is not careful, it will be not only an example of advanced mechanisation and modern organisation, but it will be a kind of museum of species that are dying out. The question of the continuance of the number of horses is getting serious. I see that at Weedon Equitation School there is an increase of £1,000, and that for £21,000 the Army is training 38 men to ride horses which will not be wanted. In the Royal Tank Corps, however, 550 men we re trained at a cost of £47,000.
I think I know the truth about all this. It is that the Army has had an opportunity of using great sums and so, irrespective of the need of the various branches of its organisation, it has simply shoved money away without regard to

business values. This is an indication of what is going to happen. If they see hundreds of millions coming along they will feel that it is a case of making hay while the sun shines. I feel that the House and the public will require to be given some stronger reasons why this sort of thing should continue than those which appear on the surface. The right. hon. Gentleman told us that one of the main functions of the Army in the future would be to supply a sort of expeditionary force. The Prime Minister was here when he made that statement. Is that just the Army view, or is it the considered view of the Committee of Imperial Defence? That is a question which should be fairly and squarely faced.
We are considering these Estimates in vacuo and it is difficult to relate the forces one to the other. The right hon. Gentleman gave eloquently-expressed reasons why he thought that the Army in the future will have to supply an expeditionary force. On the other hand, there are those who strongly hold the view that if there is any money going it is the Air Force which ought to get the advantage of the extra millions to be spent, and the view of the right hon. Gentleman is very strongly contested not only in Service circles generally but, I should say, in every part of the House. Therefore, I say it is very important that he should tell us whether he has stated simply the Army view, or whether that is the view of responsible and detached persons who have considered the matter.
I was very much struck the other night with one point that seemed to emerge from the Debate on Defence. The Debate did not seem to make quite that contribution that we had expected, but one thing which did emerge was the assumption in the mind of the Government and the House generally that, in the event of international trouble, this country will some day have to supply an expeditionary force, because the Government undertook to consider the suggestion about setting up a Ministry of Munitions, and that seems to imply that in the long view we are preparing for the despatch of an expeditionary force. In these Estimates there is a very pointed and able statement about the value of the factories and workshops belonging to the War Office for the supply of explosives, guns and other


things, and particular note is made of the high technical skill to be found in those workshops and factories. I spoke about that recently and I think the House, and probably even some Service Members, would be amazed if they were to know of the achievements in radiology of the War Office and some other branches. I suggest that if the Army, the Air Force and the Navy need supplies the only way to save this country from exploitation and from plunder is for the Government to do its own work, after taking possession of the works and factories necessary for the purpose. If the Government cannot give us effective defence or cannot give us peace at any rate it can make sure that the nation shall not be plundered in its need and extremity.
There are statements in the Press to the effect that the expenditure foreshadowed will amount to round about £200,000,000. I must say that when I read the White Paper I got the impression that it will be much more than that. One thing from which we can be saved is the knowledge that the hard-faced men will once again make plunder out of our difficulties and our troubles. In view of the fact that the Government are asking for an increase of £6,000,000—£4,000,000 net, almost—on an Estimate of £50,000,000, and with the knowledge I have of the conditions prevailing in some parts of the country, I feel that I should be unworthy of my place here if I did not protest against the free and easy manner in which we are increasing this expenditure in contrast with the treatment meted out to great masses of our fellow citizens during the past few years.
In the Debate in the fore part of this week we on this side were twitted, as we often have been before, with subordinating national interests to political expediency. If that had not been the case in years gone by with Members many of whom now sit on the Government Benches, this country would have been in a much happier position to-day. When, earlier this week, we were discussing the need for increased expenditure on defence, my mind went back to the days of the Government of 1948-1922, the Government of the hard-faced men, those who gave Parliament such a character that we would almost like to forget

that Parliament. Then we learned of the people who, during the War, had plundered the country, had been veritable jackals in taking advantage of the nation's needs. And so to-day, when we are discussing this large expenditure, which is only part of the great expenditure foreshadowed, we on this side take the opportunity to say that while we have never been opposed to an Army, efficient to fulfil its functions in this country and all its duties in every part of the British Empire, we do object to an increased expenditure which does not seem to be called for—at any rate upon this particular Vote—at a time when great need exists among masses of our fellow citizens. One old saying which is heavy with truth has come back to me during the past week. It is the piece of advice given many centuries ago:
Make friends with thine enemy quickly whilst thou art in the way, lest he turn again and rend thee.
I believe that if the soldiers of the Great War could have made the Treaty of Peace we should not have had the Treaty which is in existence to-day and which has caused such endless trouble, and that Europe would not have been in the present turmoil. In my final word I would urge upon the Government that if, 20 years ago, we missed the opportunity to take that wise advice, which might have given us something like a permanent peace we should, if we pass this expenditure to-day, do so on the understanding that the Government will use all the means at their disposal to make expeditionary forces unnecessary and the functions of the Army much more limited than those laid down by the right hon. Gentleman.

5.44 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY: I am sure that the concluding words of the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) will find agreement in all parts of the House. It is the desire of all of us that it may not be necessary for an expeditionary force again to leave our shores. I think the whole House will have listened with the keenest interest to the survey which the Secretary of State made in introducing his Estimates. I have seldom, if ever, heard a more comprehensive and more attractive method of putting the needs of the Army before this House. I want to put before him points


which may be considered of some value. Every hon. Member will agree that so long as we have overseas commitments we must be prepared to reinforce our overseas garrisons. That fact has contributed in no small way to the increased Estimates this year. There are certain points in the Memorandum issued by the right hon. Gentleman which have, nevertheless, caused a certain amount of disquiet. He alluded to some of them in his speech. The decline in recruiting is most alarming. Hon. Gentlemen have spoken about the number of rejections. I do not know whether the percentage of rejecttions is unduly high, but the fact that the Army is short of 10,000 recruits must make the task of providing drafts for India and places like Malta and Egypt extremely difficult. The right hon. Gentleman did not touch on the increase of four battalions which is foreshadowed. it seems rather hazardous to suggest four battalions when the existing forces are short. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us whether it is intended to make new regiments or whether the four battalions are to be alloted to the existing regiments. The House ought to know about that.
On the question of encouragement of recruiting, there are several reasons that might be put forward to explain the present shortage of recruits. The right hon. Gentleman noted the pacifist feeling in the country. There is no doubt about that, and in many ways it is desirable, because we all wish there were no need to have these large forces. The peace talk which goes on seems to have given the impression that the soldier is a bad man, and it is awfully difficult to convince even the people whom we know well that a young man has, by joining the forces, an opportunity to improve his education as well as his physique. If one could guarantee employment after the young man left the force, that would be a great stimulus to recruiting. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about vocational courses. We know how valuable they have been. I have seen some of the work that has been done by the men, but I believe that only one man out of eight now takes those courses, and I hope that some way may be found of increasing the number of men who pass through the vocational centres.
The next point I would touch upon is perhaps a matter of some delicacy. I

have often wondered whether the larger and brighter tattoos are in the best interests of the Service. Everyone knows what influence the tattoos have upon the young of the country who see those magnificent shows. Although I do not want to stress the point, it seems to me that those shows are getting almost too large and occupy too large and important a place. I am wondering whether, at a time when we are living almost in a state of emergency, we can spare so many men to be taken off their duties, in order to provide the wonderful entertainments at Aldershot and elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman foreshadowed the provision of a new light machine gun for the Regular Army. I hope that the distribution of that gun will be expedited, because there is nothing more disheartening or disappointing for an individual soldier than to use a gun which, in the opinion of the authorities and of himself, is obsolete. I trust that it may be possible to expedite the delivery of the weapon.
The question of the vulnerability of ordnance stores in places like Woolwich is also raised. I know that a Commission has been sitting for some time to consider whether it is advisable to move the ordnance stores from Woolwich in the near future, but, with modern aircraft, places as far away as South Wales, or even Northern Ireland, would still be vulnerable. Nevertheless, in Woolwich and in Chatham we are concentrating in a very vulnerable area an important part of our defence Forces. I have seen in these Estimates that an extra and considerable sum is proposed to be spent on new building work at Woolwich.
Following upon what was said a moment ago by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester-le-Street about 'horses, I would like to observe, as an old cavalry officer, that one sees the passing of the horse with great regret. Money is so urgently required in these days, however, that an expenditure of over £20,000 a year upon Weedon seems excessive, in view of the fact that only a comparatively small number of men are passed through the school of equitation in a year. When we take into consideration the fact that eight cavalry regiments are to be mechanised this year, the time seems now to have come for reconsideration of the position of the school of equitation. One


recognises the great value of equitation and the way in which officers and other ranks are trained, but the money might be expended in a more profitable way.
These Estimates will be largely increased by the Supplementary Estimates before the end of the year. I know that it is difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to give any precise information, because so much depends upon the European situation, but we are unfortunately committed to a large expenditure. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, in co-ordination, with the other arms, will see that everything is done so that the utmost economy in the expenditure is observed. The outlook abroad is not a pleasant one at this moment. Willingly or unwillingly, we are compelled to increase our expenditure, because our commitments are great. I hope that the few remarks which I have made and the points which I have raised may be dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman in his reply.

5.55 p.m.

Sir HUGH SEELY: I should like first of all to congratulate the Secretary of State for War on the very clear statement that he made in presenting these Estimates, and because of the lead that he has given to the Territorial Force. It is something, when increases of expenditure are being made and have to be faced in these troublous days, that we should be giving back to the Territorial Force some of the cuts that were made and which undoubtedly did harm to that Force. In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State dwelt rather vaguely—in fact he did not add anything to what was said in the White Paper and in his own paper—on the question of forces going abroad. I do not want to exaggerate this point, or to say that there is a likelihood that an expeditonary force will be used, but one has to realise at this time that that may happen. I am not satisfied that any statement we have had, either in the Debate on the White Paper or to-day, has dealt with this very difficult question.
In the Debate on the White Paper, my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) asked a question on this point and received an answer from the Home Secretary which turned it off by referring

it back to the White Paper, which is merely back to where we are now, and that is that the force should be ready to proceed overseas wherever it may be wanted. The money that we are spending now on the Estimates is not necessarily for dealing with what might be an expeditionary force. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) said that speed was to be the primary thing. I cannot see how this element of speed is being brought into modern conditions. I am not speaking of mechanisation, but of the way we are to use it, and whether it will be a force that you can use immediately. In the Debate last year a very pertinent question was raised as to what would happen if we had to send an expeditionary force abroad. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) said:
We could not send, I venture to say, six divisions, we could not send five, we could not send four, we could not send three, without, prolonged delay." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1935; col. 77, Vol. 299.]
When that point came to be answered by the then Financial Secretary to the War Office, he said:
I can only say…that it is not in the public interest to give such information. Obviously, we cannot go into details of mobilisation, but I can say this, that at the present moment the process would take longer than was the case in 1914. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 193.5; col. 959, Vol. 299.]
Although, as has been agreed in these Debates on Defence, speed will be the greatest factor, I cannot see that we have advanced at all from the position which was admitted at that time, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham said that there would be very great delay before we could even put three divisions into a Continental war.
As I have said, it is no use our blinking our eyes to this question. We on this side do not grudge the spending of money if it going to be well spent and if it is going to be spent for defence, but a great deal is being spent. This is the fourth consecutive year in which these Estimates have gone up, and they have gone up, not merely, as used to be the case, on the question of pay, but they have now gone up on munitions and wheeled transport. There has, of course,


been a large increase as compared with last year, but it is interesting to look at the figures of the year before. For gun ammunition, the figure was then £680,000, and it is now £2,235,000, or nearly four times as much, while in the case of motor transport the figure, which then was £193,000, is now £1,086,000, or practically five times as much. Are these increases which we are now voting for these warlike stores going to be really for defence, or to meet the need which may arise in the event of our having to use an army in an international war abroad?
I know that, as in the Debate on the White Paper, there is a sort of idea that £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 is not much in comparison with £100,000,000 or £200,000,000, as long as you are getting your defence, but it is our obligation, not only to see that the money is spent well, but to see that we do get this defence, and I do not feel that we have had any definite statement of policy, or that we can see from the Estimates signs of a definite drive towards dealing with this question of our having to send troops into a continental war. I am not talking of sending troops to Shanghai or Egypt, of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke, but of this question of emergency, which, after all, is a question of life and death for this country. Like others, I do not believe that our defence can rest only on the Navy or on the Air Force; I think it is most probable that we shall always come back in the' long run to the Army, which is where you get the greatest number of men, who eventually win the war.
There are one or two disturbing matters that were dealt with, I will not say lightly, by the right hon. Gentleman. On the question of recruiting, it is appalling at this time to see that we are 10,000 down. I have seen it stated that something like 26,000 men are leaving the Colours, and only 19,000 recruits are coming in, so that in that respect we are faced with a difficult position. I should like to point out one way in which this difficulty of recruiting is having a rather serious effect. One is apt to say that the Territorial Army is the second line of defence, but there is one side of the Territorial Army to which no real opposite number exists in the Regular Army, which is the first line of defence. That is as regards air de-

fence troops, because these are practically all supplied by the Territorial Army. It is a serious matter when one finds that, while the establishment for adjutants numbers 22, the actual strength is 20, and that in the case of officers, while the establishment is 593, the actual strength is only 423.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I hope the hon. Member will not anticipate the Debate that is very shortly to take place on the Motion which is to be moved as an Amendment.

Sir H. SEELY: I will not continue except to complete, if I may, the point I have been trying to make as to the seriousness of the question of recruiting, by mentioning that, while the establishment is 16,000 men, there are only 4,800 actually there. If war were imminent, this is as much a first-line defence, of this town particularly, and of the country as a whole, as any that there is, and it is very dangerous that it should be so much below strength.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think that any question of that kind must be raised on the Amendment which is shortly to be moved.

Sir H. SEELY: Of course, I bow to your Ruling. I fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we have to get up to strength in the Territorial Army. I had hoped at one moment that he was going to offer a prize, as has been done elsewhere, perhaps out of his own pocket, for something that we might suggest to him as a means of increasing this recruiting. As I have said, he has done a good deal to-day towards helping it. There is one thing that I think will still always help in making it more attractive. It may seem difficult at this time to talk of putting the Army back into brighter and better uniforms, but I am certain that, until it is made more attractive, recruits will not be obtained.
The right hon. Gentleman, the Financial Secretary and myself come from the same regiment. It recruits at Nottingham, which is a very large recruiting place, but it has fallen off a great deal lately. That is not entirely due to the Army being thought the wrong thing for a man to go into; that is not the real reason; but undoubtedly there is quite a strong feeling that a man gives up rather


too much freedom when he goes into the Army now. Undoubtedly our ideas have altered on the question of freedom and the way in which we like to spend our money, and there is a difficulty in getting even people who have for generations been sending some of their sons into a regiment to do so now, because they feel that they are going to give up their life and not to have so much freedom. I feel that a great deal can be done towards making it more attractive to join the Army, and it can be done from the regiments themselves, and not necessarily by mere advertising and trying to get people in under a false pretence. Many questions will arise on these Estimates, but we on these benches feel strongly that, while this money has to be voted, because there is a danger which we are not going to shirk, we want to see that it is voted for purposes of real defence, and is not merely added to the Estimates without our getting what we need.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. AMERY: I am sure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I shall not be transgressing your Ruling if, in congratulating my right hon. Friend on his most lucid and attractive exposition of these Votes, I congratulate him with particular warmth on the assurance he has now given that the Territorial Army will be enabled to play its proper part in the defence of the country. I think that what he has said in that Connection has won universal approval in the House, and will come as a great relief to the Territorial officers and men throughout the country. My right hon. Friend issued a challenge to the House to bring forward proposals, however revolutionary, and he promised to give them fair and patient consideration. I believe that the time has come for revolutionary proposals with regard to the whole organisation and structure of the Regular Army. That organisation, in its essentials, has not been changed for over 60 years, since Mr. Cardwell abolished the old long-service system and introduced the existing system of service and the scheme of linked battalions under which, as the House is aware, every unit, in the infantry at any rate, that is sent abroad is balanced by a corresponding unit at home, which receives the young recruits, trains and matures them for service overseas, and, on mobilisation, takes

in the reservists, and so, with the young soldiers and the reservists, completes a unit to take the field in an expeditionary force.
That system had many advantages of convenience over the old long-service system which preceded it. It is very neat, simple, and, from the point of view of peace administration, workmanlike. Nevertheless it suffers from certain fundamental defects. It is based on no consideration whatever of the strategical needs of this country. The expeditionary force which it can mobilise is fixed by the units stationed abroad, and the number of those units has nothing whatever to do with the strategical problems that may confront us, whether in Europe or in other parts of the world. Again, under the old long-service system, we always had a considerable number of units available to send abroad at a moment's notice without mobilisation. Under the Cardwell system we have no such force; we have only one British expeditionary force, to be mobilised more or less rapidly—and I am afraid nowadays very much less rapidly—adapted in no particular, either as to internal organisation or as to numbers, to the strategical problems of this country.
I remember that before the War some of us repeatedly asked why it should be six divisions—why not 60, why not one? The answer given by Lord Haldane and his successor was, "This is the Expeditionary Force which is secreted as a by-product of the Cardwell system." That is the fundamental vice of our system—it bears no relation to our military needs in war. It is a peace system, not a war system, and even from a peace point of view it has one grave defect. The period of active service, namely, seven years, is very convenient from the point of view of the War Office, but it is by no means a convenient system from the point of view of the man who is going to join the Army. It is much too short for a real career. On the other hand, it brings the man back into civil life much too late for him to be able to catch up with his fellows. I admit that a great deal of excellent work is done in the Army in order to train men for civil life afterwards, but none of this can quite compensate for the fact that the man comes back into civil fife much later than others. While, therefore, the period is


not long enough for a career, it is too long to give a man a chance of getting in on an equality with others in civil life. These essential weaknesses of the Cardwell system confronted us long before the Great War. The only Secretary of State for War, in the long line since Mr. Cardwell, who had the courage and insight to taokle this problem was the late Mr. Arnold Forster—in my opinion, at any rate, far the ablest and most clear-sighted Secretary of State that the War Office ever had at its head. From both those points of view, recruiting and strategical needs, he brought before the House and passed, though in the expiring days of the Balfour Government, a reorganisation under which the soldier would have the option of a quite short period of service, 15 months with the infantry, and a much longer period of nine years as a minimum, enabling on the one side a very large number of short trained men to pass to the reserve on mobilisation and, on the other, enabling the building up, apart from mobilisation, of a permanently mobile force of some two divisions. In that way his scheme would have provided us with two divisions available on an emergency anywhere. They could have been kept here or anywhere else, while on mobilisation the scheme would have given us a force of something like 300,000 men. That scheme, if it had only been persevered in, would have put us in an immensely stronger position in the critical months at the outbreak of the Great War. It might have altered the whole character of the War. Unfortunately his successor, Lord Haldane, with many great merits, had not the courage to face the reluctance of the then Army chiefs, with the one honourable exception of Lord Plumer, to experiment as boldly as was involved in having a 15 months service in the infantry.
The point to which I wish to come is that the need for some such reorganisation is far greater to-day even than it was in Mr. Arnold Forster's time. The recruiting problem is again terribly serious. You are not going to affect it much by little changes in uniform or little additions even of more comfortable housing accommodation, though those are all to the good. I believe you have to change it fundamentally by offering the recruit the alternative of a short service

which does not interfere with his prospects of civil life if he finds he does not care for soldiering, and a service which offers him a vista, as the Navy does, of a life-long career. From the point of view of strategy, surely the events of the last few months should have impressed on us the vital importance of having at any rate a small expeditionary force available at any moment for sending anywhere, whether to the Mediterranean or to the Middle or the Far East. It could be stationed here or it could be stationed from a. strategical point of view with great advantage in Palestine. Wherever it was stationed it would be available when needed. Trouble may arise in any part of the world. It is not the magnitude of the force despatched that matters, but the element of speed and the importance of being able to send a force the moment disturbance occurs, or even before disturbance occurs. As for the problem of an expeditionary force in Europe, that raises very great issues. It is, at any rate, possible that in a European campaign our most effective contribution would be in the air alone, or in the air and in certain technical services. On the other hand, if we do send an expeditionary land force abroad we are not again going to have years in which to build it up. If we contemplate that, again I say we shall have to think of something substantially larger than the six divisions of 1914, something less fully trained but at any rate numerically larger, something much more like the contemplated expeditionary force under Mr. Arnold Forster's scheme.
That is the strategical aspect of the matter. But the whole problem of the Army is also modified from the tactical point of view. The Army of the future is not going to be divided into the broad categories of infantry, artillery, cavalry and sappers. A great part of them will be technical, mechanical men, specialists, skilled men. What you want is a system under which you give some elementary military training to a large number, but build up a highly skilled force of specialists. In the war of the future you will never be able again to mass vast armies in the front line. Under the menace of the air they will never be able to be supplied. The front line of the future will consist of small forces of highly self-reliant, highly trained skilled men, well equipped mechanically. All that fits in


admirably with our voluntary service as against conscription. On the other hand, just because the air can over-leap the front line, you will have innumerable vulnerable points, vulnerable not only to air attacks but to the dropping of small forces from the air. The other day the Russian Air Force transported a whole bridgade of artillery, machine guns and everything in aeroplanes.
You cannot overlook the possibility of such action, and therefore, behind the front any point of any importance will require some sort of military defence. That implies very considerable numbers of less completely trained men. There again is another reason for reconsidering the organisation of our forces and the system of recruitment and training. We shall want an Army in many respects trained much more like the Navy, that is to say, with a general preliminary training in military service, mainly in the infantry, followed by increasing specialisation. That specialisation, I believe, will also involve an increasing freedom of transfer between what are at present distinct and watertight branches of the Army. You want to make a career for the skilled man right through. These things will, I believe, be far easier to work out in a voluntary Army like ours than with the great conscript masses of the Continent. The conditions of modern warfare, the demand for mechanical equipment of all sorts, make in favour of a small army of skilled men with the necessary accompanying background of less skilled men. The plea that I would make—I do not expect my right hon. Friend to answer a point like that necessarily in the present Debate—is seriously to go into the whole problem of Army service and Army organisation. We need a fundamental reorganisation of what Mr. Cardwell gave the Army 60 years ago, and it is in that sense that I have responded to the challenge that my right hon. Friend threw out just now.

6.25 p. m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I do not intend to be led into a long debate with the right hon. Gentleman over long versus short service. I am very largely with him, but it is no use applying his arguments and his brains to that question

unless he realises that there is one definite, irremovable drawback to long service, and that is that, the longer you obey orders and never think for yourself, the more brainless you become. The best people, the best soldiers, the best officers are those who think for themselves. We had a most excellent speech from the right hon. Gentleman in opening these Estimates. I have listened to speeches by representatives of the Army for 30 years and I thought it the most beautiful presentation that I have ever heard. Then I hated myself for thinking it. If the right on. Gentleman really thinks like that, if that is all he is thinking about at present, worse still, if that is what the Army Council are really applying their great minds to at present, may the Lord have mercy on our country. It was exactly the same speech, though more beautiful, as might have been made five, 10 or 15 years ago. There was no change. There is change in this world. There are three very great changes, and not a word was said about them. Speed, the imminence of danger and co-operation are the three things that I would have the Army Council think of. Have they considered the possibility of being attacked without warning? That has changed everything. We had time to send an expeditionary force across to Belgium in the old days. We had time to mobilise. We shall have no time. Have the Army Council thought of that, because it alters all your arrangements. That is one element of speed that ought to be considered by everyone who has the safety of the country at heart.
What are the new arrangements? Is the man looking over the anti-aircraft gun to fire when he sees an aeroplane, or is he to wait for orders? What is he to do?' Has that been considered? What are we to do if we are bombed to-night? What is the Army going to do about it? That is one way in which speed comes in. Another thing is speed of movement of the Army itself. Our dear old Army is still going on as it went on in the Great War, still having its parades, learning to. march, learning to pack its haversacks, some learning telephony, but not many. How far are they meeting the new demand for speed? When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to say that every man, non-commissioned officer and officer can ride a motor bicycle? How long will it be before he can say he can drive a


car? What are they learning? They are learning vocational training so that when they get out of the Army they will be of some use in civil life. Are they learning anything to make them some use as soldiers? It is becoming a skilled trade now. The right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken never said anything more sensible. It is becoming a trade where you have to learn an enormous number of things, and first of all how to use those machines which get you away quickly and get you there quickly.
In the War we had to recruit specially from the mines in order to get people to teach the Army how to countermine the German positions. I do not suggest that the Army should learn that now, but that is merely one of the hundred things that the really skilled soldier ought to know. You go on having parades, and you have in these days tattoos, when the Army pretends that it was born 300 years ago, held at Aldershot to bring in some money for widows and orphans. It is childish to spend time upon things like that, when half the education of the world is being left out of the Army. I hope to see in the Army a man trained to know all about internal combustion engines, about telegraphy, and telephony, and even trained to fly an aeroplane. When such a man returned to civil life again he would be a far more useful man, and would far more easily find a job than would be the case at the present time. Those are the elements of speed. Both right hon. Gentlemen were so much impressed with those pictures of the Russians dropping an Army on the other side of the lines and bringing tanks and guns and what not. I only hope that the Russian Army is as good at fighting as it is at propaganda. They have done propaganda very successfully to convert the right hon. Gentlemen.
The other real danger from the point of view of speed, is the speed of the aeroplane and the height at which it can travel, both those things render the aeroplane immune, provided it has command of the air; provided one side or the other, in any theatre of war, get control of the air through speed of travel, and they should be able to travel 20,000 feet up and come back from the clouds, like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mossley (Mr. Hopkinson), who, I hope, is none the worse. These things have made a revolution in war-

fare. I am not going to talk about getting control of the air, as that would not be appropriate to these Estimates. But you want the control of the air. Have not the Army Council considered the possibility of not having it? How is an Army to move by day at all? What is the effect of a hostile air force in control of the air? You may say at once that it is difficult for an air force, even the most accurate air force, to bomb trenches and dug-outs. As long as you keep an army in trenches and dug-outs by day, and move it by night with lights out, you can get about slowly, but have the Army Council considered the whole new problem of how to move an army at all if you have lost control of the air? If you move it, you must move it from wood to wood or from hiding-place to hiding-place by night. I should have liked to have heard the views of the right hon. Gentleman, even though they were erroneous views, for then I could have been certain that the problem was being faced.
The next and most vital problem which has not been considered is the fact that this country is in imminent danger. I do not say that any of us in this House are scaremongers, but every year since the Great War we have known instinctively that we were perfectly safe and now we do not know it. Even if there is only one risk in 20 of war within the next five years, you must take that danger into account, and not all the other functions of the Army you have been considering year after. year throughout the centuries. You talk about sending an expeditionary force abroad, about the importance of the Army to send an expedition to Malta to put barbed wire all round the island. You talk about the usefulness of expeditionary forces for everything on earth except the one thing—how can your army defend this country against Germany? It is no use talking about anything else. The defence Services in this country have put this country into such a position that we are in danger, and unless you visualise the real danger, and not conjure up imaginary wars against Italy, Japan, Russia or the United States of America, unless you apply yourself to the one problem of how we are to save England from Hitler and all that Hitlerism means, you are not serving our country and you are not


serving the estimation in which the Army will be held by this people. It is all very well in times of peace to change from a long service Army to a short service Army and vice versa, when here and now there is a definite danger. How are you going to meet that danger? That is a new point. Has it been considered? I am certain that the Admiralty are resolutely looking across the oceans and away from inland waters altogether. But the Army never thought of the Baltic, the Kiel Canal, Stockholm, Finland, Estonia, or any of our Allied league? We shall not want the Army in this country if we get command of the air, but we shall want it elsewhere.
That leads me to my third point. You have forgotten speed, you have forgotten the imminent danger, and you have forgotten co-operation between the various members of the League of Nations. I know that it is fashionable on those benches to deride the League of Nations, the little nations, but the real reason why so many people, perhaps not in this House but outside this House, welcome the League of Nations is because the proper use of the League of Nations will guarantee all our safety. We are not thinking, as Rothermere and Beaverbrook would have us suppose, about our glorious duty of fighting for somebody else—not a bit of it; but we are thinking how best to defend primarily this country. If there is to be co-operation against this deadly enemy, if you are to have that co-operation, are you planning for it? What have you done? What have you done to see whether and upon what terms the League, or the War Office, if the League approves, can get co-operation with Scandinavia? I daresay that the War Office may not be aware, but they ought to be aware of the fact that the Swedes are the only people who have ever conquered the Germans. They are the only people who have never been defeated, and they are the finest soldiers in the world. I would sooner have a Swedish General and a Swedish Army to command me than I would have an English or a German. [An HON. MEMBER"You were not in the last war I"] How about Russia? Are we to draw up all our plans for the defence of the League of Nations or the defence of France, I do not care which it is—I hope that you

will not include the defence of Austria—in vacuo without consulting other people, and saying what each partner in this joint enterprise ought to contribute, is willing to contribute and ought to pledge itself to contribute.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the Russian Army is about 100 per cent. better than the old Tsarist Army ever was, and I would far sooner have it on our side than the Tsarist Army as it was in 1914. The French, as ever, can bear the brunt of the Army. The Swedes can bear their share, the Russians can bear their share, and so can the Turks, who would be willing enough to go to Egypt to-day and save us some expense. But if you are to consider the duties of the Army in the future, is it not childish to go on considering those duties without reflecting upon the contributions of other people or how you are to give the greatest possible support to whatever joint scheme is put forward? To say that there is no danger to-day and that we dare not lay plans because it would be too rude is absurd. You have to lay plans. You need not do it publicly. You can make these plans privately. The right hon. Gentleman opposite is a Cabinet Minister now, and the Cabinet must speak about these things. Is he standing up to the Army Council? When I heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) the other day I said to myself "He is the only Member of this House who dares to stand up to Admirals and Generals." Can the right hon. Gentleman opposite stand up to a General? That is a question which we are all asking ourselves to-day. There are three revolutions, and the Army Council have not reflected upon one of them—surprise and speed, one enemy and no other enemies, co-operation and pooling between the various people in danger from that enemy.
I will touch upon the shortage in recruiting. It would be out of order to say anything about the Territorial Army, but I am certain that if the aristocracy of this country would do their duty and become officers in the Territorial Force we should have very little difficulty in getting the recruitment of the rank and file. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there is no shortage of


recruiting in the police force. The police force is a more dangerous career than the Army. Lord Trenchard aroused great dissatisfaction on these benches because he was trying, so we thought, to restrict the recruitment of the police force to the leisured class and public schoolboys. So many people were getting into the police force that they were trying to cut it down, not on an intelligence basis but on an education basis. There is not the slightest doubt that if they wanted 10,000 recruits for the police to-morrow, they could get them inside 24 hours. The restrictions and tests which have to be gone through in order to get into the police force are far higher even than they are in the Air Force, and yet they get the recruits.
You do not get the recruits in the Army for two reasons. One, that the English working classes hate leaving home. Many of us were torn from our homes and our mother's apron-strings and sent to the public schools, but the working classes never leave home until they get married, and then often they have to go on living at home. They are horribly shy of being sent among strangers. You will always get in the Army a certain number of adventurous spirits, those people who run away from school or get on board ship, but you have to make the Army in some way more attractive to people who are not dare-devils, and who dislike the society of rather violent colleagues. The objection of the ordinary man to going into the Army is certainly not that it is dangerous or that barrack life is unpleasant in itself, and certainly not that the career, whether long or short, is not attractive to the average Englishman. I am always asking my unemployed why they do not go into the Army, and the answer is always the same—they do not like the company. They are shy—and I do not blame them. If you take into the Army rather poor characters, you are always going to frighten off just those people that you want to get in. I wish there could be an entrance examination for the Army. It would not restrict the number of applications; in fact, I believe, it would increase them. There must be some means of eliminating From the Army the bad hats and the crooks who are taken in unknowingly, because people who get into all sorts of trouble very often join the Army—

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: Does the right hon. and gallant Member suggest that the Army should be recruited from theological colleges?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Certainly not Roman Catholic ones, but the type of men which followed Cromwell. I think that you should recruit the ordinary respectable, British working class, and you will not get that class if you take in people queer in the head, who ought never to be in the Army, because by taking in this kind pf recruit you deter other people from coming in. The shortage of recruits is serious, and will not be made good by giving higher wages. It is much more likely to be made good by lowering the age at which marriage is allowed and by enabling more men to be billeted outside; by going back to the individualistic system much more. That is the best way of improving the situation. You can recruit by taking in some of the refugees from Germany, who would make excellent fighters, and in the distant parts of the Empire you could recruit some of the coloured people. If you want men there are a hundred ways in which you can get them. But what we want are not just brainless men but people who are skilled, intelligent mechanics, who know their job, who can use their brains and the machinery which is put into their hands; and when you have an Army recruited in this way you will be able to defend this country.

6.50 p.m.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: The House always enjoys listening to a speech from the very original mind of the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I agree with some of the things he has said, and disagree very much with some other of his observations. It is hardly in the interests of peace that he should ask the Secretary of State for War definitely to name a country which we may have to fight. These, problems can be worked out in the War Office in secret, but they should not be published abroad, and I hope that we shall not have to fight anyone, especially the country which the right hon. and gallant Member mentioned. He expressed an idea, with which I thoroughly agree, that the pictures we saw of the manoeuvres at Kiev, in which whole armies were being transported by aeroplanes and landed by


parachutes, were excellent propaganda but nothing else. We cannot take such things as that into serious consideration yet. I spent some years in the Russian Army, and I know that they are past masters in the art of propaganda. I do not think that the present Russian Army, although I have not seen it, is any better than the Tsarist army or anything like as good, but that, of course, is a matter of opinion. The right hon. and gallant Member spoke of what we used to call "spit and polish." That has declined a great deal lately, and the right hon. and gallant Member will find that officers now are much more progressive and are trying to train their men intelligently, thinking less about appearances. The right hon. and gallant Member rather condemned tattoos, but I would suggest that tattoos, besides being a most stimulating recruiting agency, are also bringing large funds to military charities, and that they are not a bad thing in their way. If the right hon. and gallant Member will agree to let us have conscription such provisions for stimulating recruiting would be unnecessary.
I want to say a word about the Cardwell system and recruiting. It was a matter of astonishment to me that during the two days' Debate on the Defence proposals, not a single speaker mentioned the shortage of man power for these new schemes. We talked about machinery but nobody mentioned the problem of getting the men to work the machines. Surely that is important. We may not have another chance as in 1914, when another Power stepped in and gave us 18 months in which to prepare a brand new army. We shall have to supply an army at once in order to save bloodshed and end the war more quickly. I was rather disappointed to see in the White Paper that the Cardwell system is to be continued, for the four new battalions proposed are merely to balance out the number of battalions abroad and the number of battalions at home. The system was produced 66 years ago, in 1870, in order to provide drafts for battalions abroad. I believe that there are 45 battalions in India and 20 in coaling stations abroad. We have to keep 65 at home, each home battalion being linked up with one abroad. But the disadvantage of this is that we get no reserve for our home army. If you

are going to have seven years with the Colours and five in reserve you do not get sufficient numbers in the reserve to build up a proper expeditionary force which you may want on mobilisation. I do not agree that it is right to keep battalions at home fully mobilised. Units must be completed with reservists before being sent abroad.
I should like to ask whether it has been considered possible to do away with the Cardwell system, or, if not, to modify it. The late Sir Charles Dilke proposed that we should have a long-service army in India and at home have two years with the Colours, the men then going to reserve for 10 years, or having an opportunity of volunteering for eight or 10 years in India, at the end receiving a pension for life. I do not know whether such a system is possible. No doubt specialists and experts would find a lot of difficulties, but it would enable us to save money and at the same time build up a reserve of trained men in this country, which is what we want. The figures of recruiting at present are really very alarming. I think it is a question whether you would not attract more recruits if you took them at an earlier age. It is done in New Zealand and in Russia. There is no doubt that a deterrent to recruiting is the fear that the Army is merely a blind-alley occupation and that a man does not get a chance when re-entering civil employment. Vocational training has done a great deal to help, but it is only a small proportion of men in the Regular Army who get this vocational training. If we were to take men for the Army from 16 to 18 years of age or from 17 to 19 years of age, I think they would stand a better chance when they return to civil employment than those who now retire at 23 years of age.
These are some of the points I want to make, and I would suggest in all humility that if politicians on all sides were to talk a little less about collective security and more about the defence of our own Empire we should get more recruits. Speaking for myself, I do not intend to go abroad and die for collective security, but I am perfectly ready to fight for the vital interests of our own country. A plain man like myself is more attracted by the idea of defending our Empire than of defending any abstract idea.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. SORENSEN: I have no desire to disturb the pleasant atmosphere in which this matter of life and death, mostly death, has been discussed, and it is gratifying, particularly to hon. Members opposite, to find that there is apparently so much unanimity between the two sides of the House. I am sure that the party on these benches, just, as much as the party opposite, recognises the need of national defence, but at the same time it should be understood that, there is some difference of opinion inside the Labour party as to what precisely is the best form of national defence. We all admit that it is a duty resting upon any member of any community to preserve the community with its qualities and characteristics. The community called Britain has undoubtedly certain qualities which are not possessed by any other community in the same way throughout the world, and it is our duty, our communal responsibility, to preserve the qualities which are peculiar to our own land. That is why I rather disagree in some measure with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) when he says that war settles nothing. I am certain that war has settled a good many things in the past, and if war takes place in the future, as many obviously anticipate, in the near future or in the far future, I am certain that it will settle something. It will not settle any moral principles; wars do not necessarily settle any moral principles; but it will settle something. If I were to emulate a previous Member of this House, take up the Mace and brain the Prime Minister I should settle something, I should settle the proceedings for the day.
Violence has settled a great deal in the past and the employment of organised violence is likely to settle a great deal in the future. I would agree, too, that a virile people must defend itself and that there are certainly worse things than war. Degeneration is certainly worse than war, and if there develops in this country an evasion of responsibility for military, naval and aerial defence merely because of a diminution of consciousness, then this country will be much poorer than if it were prepared to the teeth to take part in some future war.
I can understand, therefore, the passionate earnestness of supporters of the Government when any question of war

is to be debated. I was very much impressed by the serried ranks of Conservative Members and their few allies during the Debate on the defence White Paper. One could feel that there was a note of complete and almost vehement sincerity, a brooding atmosphere of solemnity which no one could mistake. One felt that this afternoon. When hon. Members opposite discuss questions of war, defence, the Army, Navy and Air Force, they really feel that they are discussing something that is near to their hearts, something of supreme importance to which they must devote their highest attention and their most earnest consideration.
As I listened to the discussion to-day I could not help feeling that perhaps the Secretary of State for War and others who have supported him have not gone far enough. It is quite obvious, if we are to assume that the Army must be fully prepared for all contingencies, that we must anticipate that principle which has in some measure been rejected this afternoon—the principle of a conscript Army. Personally I think that it would be undesirable to have a conscript Army under any Government other than a Labour Government. To be logical my hon. Friends who support military defence are involved in the principle that if it is fair to have military defence it is fairer to spread the responsibility over the whole adult population than to rely on what hon. Members must admit is the mean subterfuge of hunger in order to drive men into the Army.
If we are to relieve the economic burdens that rest on the working class we shall face an even lower measure of recruitment than that which prevails at the present time. If we are going to take away that powerful stimulus we must be thrust back on the principle of collective responsibility. Still further I want the House to recognise that much should be done in order to encourage more men to join both the Regular and the Territorial Army, and one means by which we might attract a certain number who are not now attracted to the Army would be to announce that compulsory church parade would henceforth be abolished. I am sure that a large number would immediately rush to the recruiting office. We must recognise that to-day if you put it to the vote among recruits whether


they should attend church parade or not, honestly not more than one would attend. On the other hand, it may be felt necessary by the Cabinet and the War Office that there should be a religious department of the War Office and that the chaplains are necessary to add to the efficiency of organised violence. Questions which I have addressed to the Secretary of State for War in the last few days lead me to believe that he contemplates increasing the religious department of the War Office precisely because it is adding to the efficiency of the War Office, just as the acquisition of more ingenious equipment does.
Third, we should recognise that if we are to take the effective measures which are implied in the solemn discussions which we have had to-day and during the week there must be no financial restrictions whatever. I was impressed by the remarks which fell from the lips of a political neighbour of mine, the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), when he said that when they have spent all that they can they will have spent much less than we need. He was saying that in respect of the alleged sum of £300,000,000 which we are to spend in the next few years on defence. That seems to me to be quite logical, and I rather expected that the Secretary of State or someone representing the War Office would assure us that all that was possible would be put at the disposal of the War Office so that there should be no stinting in the direction of making the Army as efficient, effective and, indeed, as defiant as it could be.
If, therefore, it be recognised that all must be for war before anything else, that we must concentrate on the military machine, devote to it our supreme attention, then I would suggest that the sooner we recognise that that indicates a deliberate organised retreat to the jungle the better. Indeed that is recognised. Glancing at to-day's paper I saw that a well known barbarous ecclesiastic, or, shall I say, a well known ecclesiastical barbarian, speaking in Madame Tussaud's a short time ago, declared that the British tiger should have a new set of teeth. Certainly the prospect of any tiger having a new set of dentures is curious, but mixed metaphors are more or less characteristic of ecclesiastics when

they start to mix their religion with practical affairs. But obviously the intention of the gentleman was that we in this country must assume the role of the tiger, that the tiger's fang and the tiger's claw were far more effective in the world than the text and precepts of the Christian religion. I can understand his logic, and the sooner we recognise that it is logical the better.
We must appreciate this fact at the present time. We are still living, most of us, in an atmosphere very much akin to the odours and mists of the jungle. We are still able to believe, in spite of all our past experience, that war is the supreme game of life. It may be so. If it is so we are victims of our own spurious analysis, we are being hypnotised by our own illusions. We know that if war can settle who can knock who's brains out, it settles no moral question, it settles no social question, and, if pursued as it is being pursued to-day, will undoubtedly lead to the total and complete ruin of Europe as a whole. We have reached a stage now when this deliberate and solemn consideration of all the devilish paraphernalia of war has so hypnotised us that we cannot conceive of any other way of life than the way which must imply military, naval and aerial means, and as other States are doing that to-day, each one concentrating on developing this institution of destruction, the only possible consequence is bound to be the wiping out of Europe altogether before many years have passed by.
The right hon. Member for Epping said in the Debate on Tuesday that he was quite sure hon. Members would give their right arm if by that means we could secure peace. I beg to suggest very humbly that that is not true. I beg to suggest that if hon. Members were prepared to give their right arm or even less, their profit, it would be possible by such a sacrifice to face whatever took place if we relinquished the whole of our defensive forces forthwith. For the worst that could happen is the possibility of death and the loss of profits. Only if men and women in this country are prepared to face that possibility shall we be able to strike out at that evil institution which holds the world in its grip at the present time. There is no other way out than to shatter these false gods of militarism and Imperialism. The only


way is to undermine the edifice on which is founded the logical consequence of predatory Imperialism.
I earnestly trust that all will be done in order to make those who are in the fighting services as comfortable as possible. They are human beings like ourselves, and I appreciate their sincerity and earnestness. I know that I am in no way superior to them. Therefore, we owe it to them, especially if they have been driven there by hunger, to see that they have not only some comfort for their bodies but stimulus for their minds. But we have to release them as well as ourselves from the position in which they are placed, the position of being ultimately the first victims to be sacrificed at the altar of this god of Moloch which rules the world to-day and against which only a few voices are raised. Though my voice be faint I would raise it in this emphatic and sincere assertion. Only in so far as we undermine the very foundation on which militarism is based shall we be able to release the world from the fear, suspicion and gathering hatred which threaten us at the present time.

7.14 p.m.

Major P. S. SHAW: I rise with some diffidence as this is the first time I have had the privilege of speaking in this House. I would, therefore, ask the indulgence of the House if I overstep the bounds of order. The first point I would like to suggest is that we have always based our campaigns on the previous campaign. In the South African War we commenced very much in the same way as we had carried on in the Sudan.
In the last War we started as though we were fighting the South Africans, and this was all the more extraordinary in that our attaches, who had been watching events, had laid down that three things were absolutely necessary. First, there was the necessity to increase our firepower by machine guns. Secondly, there was the need for field fortifications. Thirdly, it was necessary that we should acquire guns of big calibre. For some reason or other, either because of lack of money or lack of foresight, we did not bother about these matters.
At the present time I think we must assume two things. The first is that next time we go to war—and I sincerely hope it will not be for many, many years—we

shall have to expand, and that quickly. The second thing is that if we are going to expand, we must expand first of all from the Regular Army and then from the Territorial Army. I suggest that as we have them at present the establishments of the Territorial Army are not at all suited to the Cardwell system of expansion. If we are to expand, one thing is absolutely essential, and it is that there should be more instructors. The expansion will have to be rapid, for time will be a big factor, and we must remember that the next war will not be so static as was the last one. Consequently it will be necessary to have a very much higher standard of training. I remember that when I was at the Military College, Lord Roberts gave us a talk in which he prophesied two things, first, that the next war would be against Germany, and secondly, in a few remarks concerning the Territorial Army, in which he said that there was the finest body of men one could find anywhere, he claimed that the trouble would be to get them on the road. We all know that one prophecy came true, and I am not at all certain that if the last war had not been static we should not have found very much more difficulty in getting the men on the road.
I think we must devise a system of more intensive training. When I was in the Tank Corps we discovered that there was a shortage of instructors and we started a system of instructional classes. In the end the training of the Corps derived considerable benefit from the increase of the number of instructors. But it is not only a question of the training of the Territorial force. I suggest that the composition of the Territorial force ought to be somewhat changed. A mobile machine gun corps should be formed, the reasons for this being two. First of all, it would greatly and immediately add to the fire power of our regular forces when sent abroad. Secondly, the mobile machine gun corps would be able to appear with the tanks, either via the water or by men landing from the air, because concentration could be effected more quickly. I suggest that the Territorial Army should be run on more technical lines, and that the men in that army should have a training which will be of use to them in civil life.
There is one other question which I consider to be very serious at the present


time. The Territorial Army is not equipped with modern weapons. This has a very depressing effect on the troops, and, moreover, if the troops are not equipped with modern weapons it is impossible to train them, for the tactics of any weapon are governed by its characteristics, and unless men can be trained with modern weapons they cannot be properly trained in the tactics of those weapons. I would also suggest that the armoured car units in the Territorial Army require much more attention. The time when those units will be used, and used most effectively, will be at the beginning of a campaign, and it is, therefore, essential that they should be armed with the necessary armoured cars of an up-to-date type, because it is a highly technical and very difficult matter to train these troops.
This brings me to another question concerning tanks. I was glad to hear the. Secretary of State say to-day that our tank units are to be increased. When I started my service I was a cavalry man, and I fully realise what a wrench it must be to those regiments to have to hand in their horses; but I also realised during the last War how hopeless was the task of the cavalry. I am perfectly convinced that the role of the cavalry is still as important to-day as it has been throughout the ages. What has really happened is that barbed wire and machine guns have done away with the horses, but the tactical rôle of the cavalry still remains, and the cavalry will still be wanted for reconnaissance, for sharp actions and for pursuit. Therefore, I think it is essential that we stop experimenting with tanks and armoured vehicles and get down to tactics. We should issue the weapons and get on with the job.
In conclusion, I would like to make one or two remarks about recruiting. I am certain that the Secretary of State has done more good for the recruiting of the Services to-day than has been done for a long time. The whole question is simply one of the feeling that "It is not done" to join the Army. We ought to counter this propaganda which has been going about, and we ought to devote the whole of our time to seeing that the right feeling is disseminated. I firmly believe that we are now living in a period in which we see the reactions

of the Great War. We know that the reactionary period after the Napoleonic wars lasted for 30 years. I believe it is the job of this great Empire or ours to carry through this reactionary period and to see that the peace of the world is maintained. I believe it is a very much higher thing to do that than simply to sit down and say that one relies on peace, and peace alone.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. EDE: I am quite sure the House would desire me to express to the hon. and gallant Member for Wavertree (Major Shaw) our congratulations upon the speech which he has just delivered. He spoke with a great wealth of knowledge on the subjects with which he dealt, and I am sure that when he approaches the House in that spirit we shall always be glad to hear him. I may say that I entirely agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman in the earlier part of his remarks. I joined the old volunteers in 1899, and in those days we had a wonderful movement which was called, "Prepare to receive cavalry." As we were marching round the drill hall, the captain gave that command. We then formed a company, right or left as the case might be. The next order was, "In the flanks." We fixed bayonets, the front rank knelt, the rear rank stood, and then we did some mimic volley firing. I recall that in the 1900 camp, when we were somewhere near Emperor's Hill at Aldershot, one of the staff officers rode up as we were going through and said, "That has all been wiped out; we have found that is not the way to win the resent war." From 1900 to 1914 we trained the army to win the Boer War in less time than it took us. I am not at all sure, especially after listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) the other afternoon, when he told us of all the things they wanted at the beginning of the war and had not got, that we are not engaged in the interesting intellectual pastime of winning the Great War in less time than it took.
I am sure that the next war when it comes—and I regret to find that this afternoon, as on Tuesday, what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) called doom-like inevitability, is in the atmosphere—will be won,


as all wars are won, by the surprise which some officer of genius is able to bring. Consequently, I am not interested in some of the things that are said in dm White Paper and that are fundamental to the discussion this afternoon. I do not think that of necessity we shall get the best advice by having the highest ranks in the advisory parts of the army filled by people who have all come from one college. I am sure that the man who will win the next war will be a person who will not have borrowed his ideas from the old generation, apart from finding his way through them and round them. To employ for preparations for the next war somebody who possesses the imprimatur of those who took a long time to win the last one is not of necessity the best way to deal with the matter.
I was also surprised this afternoon to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he wanted the contented soldier, and, waxing very poetical, the happy warrior. I recall a day in July of 1918 when the officer then commanding me asked me what was the spirit of the troops. I conveyed to him as boldly as I could that they were grumbling about everything, about himself and myself and everybody else, and he remarked to me: "Do you not know, Sergeant-Major, that the more they grumble the better they are as troops." I replied: "Well, I think we have the best regiment since the battle of Hastings." I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman if he looks back in history will find a time when the British soldier ever was contented. It is not in his nature to express content, but let somebody from another regiment suggest that his regiment is not all that it ought to be, and there will be the most lurid remarks—which could not be mentioned in this House but might be privately communicated behind the Speaker's Chair—as to the reasons for thinking that the very misery of his regiment makes it a better one than any other.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do something to remove the uneasiness that some of us feel at the calm assumption that was made on Tuesday by the right hon. Member for Epping, and has been made again this afternoon, that all these preparations are aimed at one nation, and one nation only. It may be necessary to prepare for war against a particular nation, but I cannot help think-

ing that what the right hon. Gentleman said to-day in giving the instance of the Low Countries and Northern France was the thing that was obviously uppermost in his mind, and it ought to reassure the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and give him no cause for misgiving. I do not understand the references of the Secretary of State for War to collective security. I can find nowhere in this Debate or in the debate that we had on Monday or Tuesday any indication that we know what our liabilities are under collective security. It seems to be the logic of the remarks that we heard from the right hon. Gentleman that we are so much in favour of collective security that we intend to arm ourselves to enforce it. The words "enforce collective security" are to be found in the White Paper, paragraph 10. I cannot understand what the enforcement of collective security means. I could understand granting or accepting collective security, but to "enforce" it is a word that seems to be entirely out of place. It is like the case of the famous head master who announced the text:
Blessed are the pure in heart.
and then said "Boys, be pure in heart, because if you are not I will flog you till you are." Can it be suggested that we are going to enforce collective security on people? I gather that what the Government mean is that they are so much in favour of collective security that they will arm themselves until they will be independent of it, so that if collective security is demanded for other people they will be able to afford it whether other people come in or not. It seems to me that there must be a contemplation that other people will do the same. Everybody then will have so armed themselves to enforce collective security that nobody will feel secure and the thing will have disappeared.
Let us look at the position in which we are in this House compared with the position of a certain Balkan State where last November the Speaker of the House desiring to rule a Member out of order took aim at him with a revolver. It was not Holles who rushed to the Speaker of this House and held him in the Chair, but a large number of Members from all parts of the House who sought to deprive him of his weapon. Ever since the Speaker of the House has been provided


with a guard, whether to guard Mr. Speaker or in order that he should guard Members is not quite clear. We all know that the rulings of the Speaker on matters of Order are accurate, and if they are aimed at a particular Member they are not merely accepted by that Member but by the other Members of the House; but if to enforce a ruling the Speaker were to take aim with some missile weapon, great as the respect of hon. Members would be for him, they would be edging away for they would probably feel that, capable as you the Speaker might be in merely directing words at a Member, they would not like to take their chance that he would necessarily hit the man at whom he aimed the bullet.

Sir EDWARD GRIGG: Has the hon. Member not forgotten the Serjeant-at-Arms?

Mr. EDE: The Serjeant-at-Arms is under the control of the Speaker and he does not advance into the House—unfortunately I have seen him do it in my time—until he gets an order from the Speaker.

Mr. COOPER: An example of collective security.

Mr. EDE: He does not enforce collective security. He enforces the order of the Chair. If we expect to get peace from arms we are bound to be disappointed. There is nothing in the history of the world that can make us think that we are going to get the peace that we all desire merely by building up armaments, but we have to deal with the world in which we live, and in this world it, is necessary that there should be an armed force under the control of somebody that could speak with authority for the collective conscience of the world. I do not believe that these national armaments are going to get us near to that.
There is one point mentioned in the Memorandum circulated by the right hon. Gentleman in connection with the Estimates to, which I would call attention, and that is the question of Army discipline. I do not think that sufficient attention has been given to a real analysis of the kind of material that we shall have in any Army that we may have to put into the field in the future. The Army that we had in the late War consisted,

at the end, of four elements. First, there were the men who were time-serving soldiers when the war broke out, the professional army, who had a standard of discipline that was the finest in the world of its type. Secondly, we had the Territorials, men who had given up for years their Saturdays and their holidays to equip themselves for the task that they had undertaken, men who were drawn into the Army and whose relationship with their unit was quite a different one from that of the regular Army. Then we had the men of Kitchener's Army, who came in at the beginning of the War with a very different spirit from either of the other two. Lastly, we had the men who were brought in under the Derby scheme and the various conscription schemes.
I well recollect that a staff officer, at the beginning of 1916, came to the unit with which I was connected and complained that there was not enough crime, that the sheets did not show a sufficient amount of crime and that therefore discipline must be bad. He was probably an officer of the old regular Army and was trying to judge the men who had come into the Army with a far different spirit and from far different causes than the regular soldiers. He was judging them by the standard of the men he had known. What he regarded as crime it was very difficult to understand. I recollect a serious consultation as to what one ought to do with a young sprig from the university who had jumped on to an adjutant's motor bicycle and ridden it round a French village. I could not imagine any regular soldier doing such a thing. It was difficult to find what crime could be alleged against him for doing what he did, but everybody agreed that it must be regarded as subversive of military discipline. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and those who have to deal with this matter will see that the Army Council and those responsible have some concern in that respect with regard to any expeditionary force that we may have to send out. I hope that we shall learn something from the lessons of the past.
The Prime Minister was right when he said that people are very wrong who think that because we love peace we should hesitate if the necessity arose. I am sure that in any future war in which we may be engaged with allies this coun-


try will play its historical role and that it will be the unwavering determination of the British rank and file not to be beaten that will see us through any great cause to which we are attached. I believe that the last War was won in March and April of 1918 when the British rank and file, who ought to have been down and out by all the rules of the game, refused to be beaten and carried on, with the discipline that they had gained in peace, with the fabric of the Army until it could be re-established. I believe that in future the cause of freedom will win if we depend upon that spirit, and I hope that those who are responsible in high command for fashioning the Army that we have to rely upon will not forget the spirit with which they have to deal. The Army is something more than a collection of men. Its value depends upon the spirit of the men and their determination that they will not be beaten.
Allusion has been made this afternoon to the expense incurred at the School of Equitation at Weedon. At a meeting of the Estimates Committee yesterday we considered the question of that school and various other schools of the Army and I said to the Estimates Committee that it is still thought that no man can be an officer until he has learned to wear spurs. I hope that that is not really the feeling of the Army Council and that some of the things said by the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme will sink in, and that probably crossed spanners may be regarded as a more effective decoration for a man's arm in these days than crossed swords. We have passed the time when we can expect to find salvation by continuing old methods. I wish to express my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman not merely for the fact that he has introduced these Estimates in so lucid and careful a manner, but for the fact that he has sat through the Debate since and listened to the remarks of Members of all parties with regard to them. I think that in these days, when we do not often get such courtesy, the House of Commons ought to express its thanks to the Minister both for having opened this subject to us in a manner which we can all understand and for remaining to hear the views of other hon. Members upon it.

7.47 p.m.

Major Sir RALPH GLYN: I congratulate the Secretary of State for War on his speech in introducing these Estimates. I am sure that the House has never had a more satisfactory statement on the Army since the days when Lord Haldane introduce his great scheme. There is one subject of great importance which it would be impossible, I fear, to raise on any of the Votes and to which I wish to refer. It is the question of why the War Office should have to present to Parliament an estimate for such an enormous sum by way of non-effective charges. This year it amounts to £8,500,000. In the course of this interesting Debate little has been said about the high command or the officers of the Army. Those who served during the War will remember that there were many instances of estimable persons, of a somewhat advanced age, being put in charge of commands, although, through no fault of their's, they had never had the chance of exercising troops in any large number.
I venture to suggest that the Secretary of State should consider some way of dealing with the pensions system in the Army so as to remove it from this Vote. I submit that he ought to get from the Treasury power to pay officers, up to field rank, at a higher rate and to eliminate pensions altogether. At present, there are officers who would, themselves, say that they are "just hanging on for their pensions." They have lost their energy and their interest. It is inevitable that, in some cases, officers will get stale because they are engaged in the same task year in and year out. When they reach a certain age and find that promotion is still far off they are bound to lose interest. If the essence of modern war is speed, you ought not to have a commander in the field over 52 or 55 years of age, because, above that age, a man's brain cannot work quickly enough to deal with modern conditions. I suggest too that brigadiers should seldom be over 47 years of age. We have to bring our minds back to the days when the British Army was commanded by people like Wolfe and by Wellington when he was a young man. They were active-minded, able to follow events quickly, and the men had confidence in them.
Furthermore, if you pay your officers better and eliminate pensions, you will


make promotion from the ranks easier. An enormous number of very capable men are serving in the ranks who could not afford to take the ordinary Army pay as commissioned officers while looking forward to pensions but who could rise from rank to rank if the pay was on a higher scale. Again, it confuses the mind of the public to read that the Army is spending, as in this case, £48,000,000. The public naturally presume that that is being spent on war materials and on the actual work of the Army whereas £8,000,000 of it is going in pensions, children allowances and things of that sort which are quite apart from the ordinary services of the Army. I do not think that any other country associates its pensions scheme with its Army Estimates. In order to draw a true picture the Estimates ought to contain of course the pay of the Army and also half-pay but not these other sums.
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman could do something in this way which would help younger men to attain high command a little quicker than they do now. If we are to make effective use of the expensive machinery with which we are about to equip the Army, we ought to take some step in that direction. Old brains are unable to grasp new problems. One remembers in. the last War the man-power that was wasted in unnecessary raids and the tests which were supposed to keep up the moral of the Army and the general officers who seemed to pay more attention to being properly saluted than to the question of whether their men were happy and contented or not. I do not blame those officers. They had lived in a time when that sort of thing mattered and they were suddenly placed in a situation and faced with conditions which they were unable to grasp. Our Army may be small, but I agree with the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that we have the best rank and file in the world. If you are going to spend money on the Army it is worth while spending sufficient, in each grade from subaltern to lieutenant-colonel, to make the pay comparable to that in other professions and if a man is not going to be a success in the Army, let him leave the Service while there is time for him to do something else. Do not let him remain in

the Army under the hypnotic influence of a pension at some future time, when he is doing no good for himself and probably very little good for the Army.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. COOPER: It will probably be convenient if I reply at this stage to some of the points which have been raised during the Debate. It has been an interesting Debate and I think there has been, underlying it, a measure of agreement among all parties in the House. The criticisms and suggestions made have all been useful and instructive. I propose shortly to reply to some of the questions put to me. Many of the speeches did not ask questions and therefore do not call for any reply, although they expressed views which were well worth hearing. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) expressed disappointment that I had not stated more specifically the causes of the increase of £6,000,000 in these Estimates. It is mainly due to four causes—first, preparations for the emergency; second, increase in warlike stores; third, the restoration of the cuts which was not allowed for in last year's Estimates, and, fourth, the considerably larger provision for the Territorial Army, the reasons for which I have already explained.
Several Members touched on the White Paper and the policy there outlined. I made no reference to anything contained in the White Paper because, strictly speaking, we are dealing only with these Estimates, and they were drawn up quite apart from the White Paper and have no, relation to it. The hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay) asked me about the four new battalions. There is no provision in these Estimates for them, and therefore I do not propose to deal with that subject and indeed I would hardly be in order in doing so. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street also raised the question of Weedon and the general question of the amount which is still being spent on the maintenance of horses in the Army. Other hon. Members, including the hon. and gallant Member for Tonbridge and the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), also mentioned that question. We are at present in a period of transition. The hon. and gallant Member for Wavertree (Major Shaw) in a very successful


maiden speech was perhaps the only Member who had a good word to say for the horse as being still of some use in a military force. I was rather glad that the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) was not in his place, or he would not have allowed the hon. and gallant Member's statement to pass. I think this is the first time for some years that we have missed an oration on this occasion from the hon. Member for Leigh against the horse, and I can only conclude that we have not had it on this occasion because he feels that the battle has been won and his adversary destroyed.
Transference from the one system to the other must be a gradual process, and it is natural that expenditure upon a system which is gradually being abandoned should appear, at first sight, to be both large and unnecessary. But as I say we cannot change over in the twinkling of an eye. The change has to he made slowly, and when a large establishment like Weedon is gradually being reduced, the expense appears to be greater, in proportion to the work that is being done, than it was before. When we were turning out a large number of highly trained officers from the equitation school, it seemed more reasonable that we should be spending a considerable sum upon it, than that we should be spending a much lesser sum now, when we are turning out only a small number of officers. The overhead charges and the upkeep, however, remain the same although the establishment is being greatly reduced. That is one of the reasons why the figure appears so large at the present time. The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street also asked about remounts. We have recently set up a committee at the War Office under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to go into the whole question and to see whether that expenditure cannot be reduced. It is possible that we shall be able to consider the future of Weedon at the same time.
The hon. Member for Chester-le-Street and others notably the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) asked questions which, if I were to answer them fully, would take me into realms where I have no business to stray—into the realms of foreign affairs. I was asked

how far the action which was taken in the special emergency in the Mediterranean this year had been planned with other nations and how far collective security was working on a collective basis. The expenditure was entirely due to the foreign policy which we were following, the policy of sanctions but the immediate cause of it was the threat which we ourselves incurred in following out that policy and therefore there was no consultation or talks with other nations who were acting with us. I think it was the hon. Member for South Shields who asked how the collective security system was working. I am pointing out that in this particular emergency we did not take action in consultation with other powers. We took action because we were threatened, owing to the policy of sanctions which was being followed.
The hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, remember that when we with other nations imposed sanctions upon Italy, we got the whole of the blame. Attacks appeared on us in the Italian Press which, unlike our Press, is the mouthpiece to a large extent of the Government. These attacks included threats of what they were going to do and how they would attack our possessions in the Mediterranean and certain countries for whose external defence we are responsible. Therefore it was our obvious duty, in support of the policy of sanctions and collective security, to take measures to defend ourselves against such attacks. We did not consult with other Powers and there were obviously no reasons why we should have done so. I can assure the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme that there is no secrecy and nothing to conceal. We are not making any secret military plans with other Powers in the League of Nations, and the reason is that we, unlike the hon. Member for South Shields, are not preparing to fight any particular nation. It may be that one nation seems to be preparing to fight and is a greater menace than another, but at present we have not entered, and it is not our policy to enter, into any military conversations, because we still assume that all nations will behave in a civilised manner. When the right hon. and gallant Gentleman asks me, "Are we prepared to be attacked without any warning?" I say, "No, we are not, and we do not intend


to be." We still believe, and we hope to be able to continue to believe, that civilised nations will behave in a civilised manner. A man cannot go about prepared against assassination. We must carry on our normal lives, assuming that murder will not take place. If we go about in coats of mail, with pistols in our pockets, prepared to defend ourselves to the death, then indeed we have gone back to the jungle. We have not yet reached that stage, and I hope we never shall.
The hon. and gallant Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) asked me about the lack of strength in our anti-aircraft defences. This is a new development, and we hope recruiting will improve considerably in the near future. I did not quite understand his plea for full dress. He reminded me that I had the honour at one time to serve in the same regiment as himself. He said the lack of full dress discouraged recruiting, and that in Nottingham, whence recruits for this regiment were largely drawn, recruiting had recently fallen off but he seemed to forget that the regiment in question still had full dress and was still wearing it. I am therefore unable to follow the logic of his argument.
The hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) both suggested to me that it was time to inquire at any rate into the Cardwell system, if not to revise it or abandon it. I have not been in my present position at the War Office for very long, but I am prepared to consider the possibility that that system, which has been in existence for so long, might well be inquired into at the present time. I think there was an investigation very shortly after the War, and I am not sure that that inquiry was not made by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg), but I will certainly look into the matter and see whether the time has come for a further inquiry.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe also suggested that younger recruits would be a good thing, but I am afraid that that is not a suggestion which is likely to prove very helpful. We take boys of 18 now, and very often, as I know from the many

passionate appeals for their release that come before us, even that age is not satisfactory to many people. Even at 18 it is impossible on medical grounds to send them abroad, because they are not strong enough to stand the climate. Younger recruits therefore, even from that point of view, would be impracticable, and I think at the present time that 18 is young enough.
The hon. Member for South Shields appeared to be under the impression that all the heads of the War Office came from the same college. I think he was thinking of the additional members of the Joint Planning Committee who are to pass through the Imperial Defence College. I am not sure be quite realises what that college is. It is actually a course of one year which officers from all three Services, and from the Civil Service too, take. I do not think he need be afraid that the fact that they pass through the extra course intended to broaden their minds, to insure that they shall not look at questions from the merely Army, Navy, Air Force or even Civil Service point of view, and to let them see the whole picture—I do not think he need fear that that will tend to stereotype them or produce men of only one type.
The hon. Member also, I think, before he finished his comparison with your contemporary, Mr. Speaker, in the Hungarian or Rumanian House of Commons, saw that he was really on the wrong track. He said that the Hungarian Speaker must have resorted to a revolver. No such thing could be imagined in this House, because we are so accustomed to the system of collective security in which we all live that violence very rarely occurs. But there have been unfortunate incidents when force has had to be used, and that force does lie behind Mr. Speaker's words, although none or very few of us—I hope none of us here at present—have ever gone so far as to render the application of that force necessary. But then is the force there, just as there will be in the future, when collective security is what we all hope it will be and when force will never need to be applied, because once the League of Nations says it must be so, so great will be the strength behind that word that it would be folly and waste of time and energy to defy the force that could


be brought to implement it. I think I have answered all the questions of which I have taken note. I should like to thank hon. Members in all parts of the House for the interest and the constructive part which they have taken in the Debate, and I hope that, they will now agree that you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, should leave the Chair.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: May I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a question? My right hon. Friend may remember that last autumn I submitted a scheme to him for raising and establishing a defence force. He was kind enough to give this matter his consideration, and in time he wrote to me, after getting advice from his officers, and said that at the time there was no necessity for forming a defence force. In view of what has happened quite recently, I want to ask him if he will do me the honour of reconsidering that scheme. I have re-submitted it to him, but my right hon. Friend has not had time to look at it. Will he do me the favour of looking at this scheme once more, in view of what has happened in the last few days, to see if he does not really consider that a defence force of that kind would be very helpful and indeed necessary just now?

Mr. COOPER: I shall be very glad to look at it again. As a matter of fact, the subject with which my hon. Friend was dealing has been under very recent consideration at the War Office, and we hope to reach a decision very soon. I am sorry not to be able to make an announcement on the subject to-day, as a decision has not yet been reached.

TERRITORIAL ARMY.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. CROSSLEY: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House notes with anxiety the progressive reductions in the numbers annually recruited for the Territorial Army, and is of opinion that the Government should take all necessary steps to stimulate recruiting and to bring the personnel and equipment of the Territorial Army, and especially of those units comprising the London air defences, up to strength.
I believe it is not irrelevant for the House to recall that the creator of the Territorial Army was Lord Haldane, and that it was Lord Haldane also who wrote the words of the years just before the war

to the effect that Germany would be so strong by land and sea that she could swagger down the high street of the world making her will prevail at every turn. I believe it is also not irrelevant for us to remember that the Territorial Army at that time consisted of 270,000 men, whereas the present Territorial Army has only 121,000 men. The duties remain the same, with one exception. The Territorial Army is the second line of defence to the Navy, and that can be a very important affair if the Navy happens to be engaged in the Eastern Mediterranean on League of Nations business. In addition to its usual duties, however, the Territorial Army is almost wholly responsible for anti-aircraft defences, so far as they are conducted from the ground, that is, by shooting from the ground, or by illumination of the sky, and if I may say so, the second is by far the more important, because the whole efficacy of the defending air force depends on the sky being adequately illuminated.
The House was, I think, profoundly grateful last summer to the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), when he said, in countering a statement of the Prime Minister's that bombers always got through, that in his experience every invention had always been met with a, counter-invention. In addition to reminding the House of those two quotations, I want to tell a brief story of an Air-Marshall in France in the last war who had to address a very hostile audience of officers of a division which was being severely harassed by air bombing. He listened to their complaints, and at the end of them he turned to them and said, "Gentlemen, all my available aeroplanes are now dropping bombs upon the enemy, and if they are squealing more than we are squealing, then we are winning the war." The point I want to make is that although the foreign manufacturing districts may be more vulnerable than our own, the heart of this great Empire, this great city, with its arteries centring upon it, is most vulnerable of all, and I hope I shall carry the House with me when I say that it should not be through any lack of either expenditure or efficiency that the air defences of this country should not be brought up to full strength. We cannot possibly afford to admit the assumption that the bomber always gets through and to rely merely upon the methods of that air marshal, right no


doubt as they were at that time, the methods of retaliation and an implicit trust in our own people to endure longer and more firmly than any other people.
There is one difference which I would emphasise between the soldier of the main Territorial Army and the anti-aircraft Territorial soldier. It is possible that the man in the main Territorial Army might he recruited, as he was in the last War, and trained for his duty after war breaks out. The anti-aircraft Territorial soldier must be fully trained, equipped and recruited before war breaks out or, if that be not possible, before mobilisation. The corollary to that is that nothing less is really satisfactory for our Territorial Army than that the force should be fully recruited up to war strength and permanently maintained at war strength during peace time. There are many advantages in the Territorials for this service. They have, on the whole, a longer service. They become highly proficient in what is, after all, a highly specialised arm of our defence. It is no part of this Motion to inquire whether or not we should wholly depend for our air defences upon Territorials, but if they can be recruited there are no more efficient troops. The present situation is lamentable. There are at the moment 5,386 men recruited for the London air defences. The establishment given in these Estimates is 17,002. I believe that that is the peace-time establishment and that it is probably considerably lower than what is considered necessary in war time. The House can deduce from those figures that not more than one gun in three and not more than one searchlight in three can be manned at the present time. I have drawn attention to this subject because I hope that Londoners, having, as they have, a pride in their great city, and knowing these facts, might well take upon themselves a greater share in the obligations of its defence.
I come now to possible remedies. I want to appeal to the Government, I want to make an appeal to employers, and I want to say a word with great respect to organised labour. My appeal to the Government has mainly been forestalled. Hon. Members will often find themselves put at a disadvantage by finding all their best arguments forestalled and far better expressed by other hon. and right hon. Members of vintage

character. I daresay that many of us have felt discouraged in that way, until we have realised that repetition is a necessity and that the nail must be hit many times firmly on the head before it is really struck home. I believe that that is true even of this Debate, for a grateful House will have heard the Secretary of State strike the nail at least half way home. I am glad that it is my duty to-day, not so much to ask, as to thank him for what has been granted, and I do so with gratitude.
I want to attract the hon. Gentleman who will reply to a statement which I have drawn up after consultation with many officers and others engaged in recruiting as to their opinion on recruiting. They say that, even with increased emoluments to the men, employers and shop foremen will not give facilities to their junior hands for second holiday or for a holiday during the best holiday month in the year, that is, August, which is the perquisite of the senior hands. If a man is married, he wants to give him wife a week's holiday at least. He is probably struck off the pay roll of his firm. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned Lord Rothermere as a fine example of an employer who was encouraging his men to be recruited for the Territorial Army. I can give one or two examples—and they are not by any means the only ones that could be given—of employers who have set a fine example for many years. I will venture to name two employers and one district which have done well by the Territorial Army. John Barkers have done well and so have the South Metropolitan Gas Company, while the Bedford employers are the best of any district in the country. It is important that men should not lose a week's pay. The concession that has been given may do a good deal, but the second holiday is not entirely got over by that concession. I want to quote an opinion which I have drawn up after talking with many people from the employer's point of view. This is a precis of what is probably the view of the average employer who considers a Territorial Army with neither favour nor disfavour when faced with an officer asking him to encourage recruiting:
I am not opposed to the Territorial Army. All you say may be true. Naturally, you are interested in it because it is your job, but my firm is not in the least interested in it. Why should it be? You


can hardly expect my firm to shoulder additional cost by giving its employés pay while in camp when other firms in the same business do not do so. My firm has no objection to its employés joining the Territorial Army if they wish to do so. My firm will not oppose you in your endeavours to persuade the men to join, in fact, we will give you any reasonable facilities you require to speak to the men, but we do not feel ourselves called upon to take any further steps in the matter than those. My directors feel that all this necessity for voluntary service does not really exist, in spite of all you tell me. If it did exist, as you allege, we have no doubt the Government would tell us and the country so. That would put an entirely different complexion on the whole matter. But the Prime Minister, so far as we are aware, has never given us any such indication, and you must forgive us if we regard the Territorial Army as the hobby of the enthusiast rather than as a national necessity.
I think a great deal has been done towards meeting that pronouncement by the, Secretary of State. Reading the Apocrypha recently I came across this sentence which seemed to me to be appropriate in regard to the suggestion about the Prime Minister:
Add not more trouble to a heart that is vexed.
I would have regarded that as a guide and left it, where it was had not this verse occurred about four verses later:
Be at peace with men. Nevertheless have but one counsellor of a thousand.
I could not help feeling that it would be a good thing if the Prime Minister were to say once that he regarded the Territorial Army as a vital factor in national defence, because the country at large does really regard him as just that one counsellor in a thousand to which it is looking for guidance at the present moment, and this is an important point on which he can give guidance. I throw out that suggestion, which I hope may possibly reach him. I believe there is one other thing the Government might do. There is the possibility of instituting or re-instituting something analagous to the King's Roll to give an honourable distinction to firms which treat the Territorial Army well, and I pat that up to them as a suggestion.
Before I sit down I want to say one word to organised labour, and I hope I shall carry them with me. Many men in the Territorial Army feel at a disadvantage with their workmates. It may

be that the union expresses disapproval—

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: Not one.

Mr. CROSSLEY: I am very glad to hear it. More often the shop foreman expresses active opposition, and that can be proved in many cases. Sometimes municipal authorities oppose the local Territorial battalions. In my old constituency of Oldham there was the best Territorial battalion in the whole country. I am not frightened of saying that, because it has won the "Daily Telegraph" Cup for the last two years. At the last prize giving the local authority, which has a Labour majority, did not even send a representative to the prize giving. It is non co-operating. I accept, and I believe the House accepts, the hypothesis of hon. Members opposite that disarmament under the League of Nations is far the best thing, but that if you cannot get disarmament this country should try to make the League of Nations work. Will they not accept with me the corollary to that hypothesis, which is surely that in a world where there are great nations outside the League of Nations, who might fight, the League of Nations is hopelessly placed in coming to the succour of a country which cannot in the first instance defend itself? I hope that during this Debate one of their speakers will make it quite plain that they look with disfavour and disapprobation upon any attitude of non-cooperation or of obstruction in the matter of recruiting. I hope I have not said anything too provocative or challenging. I was in the Territorial Army myself many years ago.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: It has made you look smarter.

Mr. CROSSLEY: My main object in bringing this subject forward—perhaps in view of the concessions it was largely unnecessary—was that the country might know something of the truth about the state of the Territorial Army to-day, especially that London might know how it lies more or less defenceless before its enemies, and in the hope that we might get greater co-operation on the part of all sections in the country, who, after all, have the same common striving after a greater civilisation to defend. When I was in the Territorial Army I was in


one of the Yeomanry regiments, which had not been "converted" with any of the more hideous devices of modern warfare, and I am proud to have been so, because anyone who has served in the Territorial Army will wish it all prosperity and all success.

8.33 p.m.

Colonel PONSONBY: I beg to second the Amendment.
In craving the indulgence of the House on making my first speech I may say that I am glad to address the House on this subject because for many years I have been interested in the Territorial Force and am at the present moment in possession of, perhaps, the rather doubtful honour of being the oldest serving officer in the House, anyhow in the matter of age. If in the few remarks I wish to make I am a little retrospective and a little critical, I ask the House to remember that I am making this contribution as a serving officer, and also as a member of a Territorial Association, which for many years has been one of my chief interests. I am also speaking, perhaps, for what my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment would call the main Territorial Army. He has dealt very largely with the position of the air defences of London. I am going to say a little about the main question, especially of recruiting. When I look back at my own experience, especially from 1920 onwards, I can only say that it is a miracle that any Territorial Army is in existence at all. All the circumstances and all the sentiments of the time were against it. It is only the characteristic tendency in this country to gratuitous public service that accounts for the existence of the Territorial Army. What also accounts for it may be termed patriotism or the club spirit, or possibly one factor which is rather forgotten, which is that there are still people in this country who are interested, perhaps for hereditary reasons, in the science of war. That applies enormously to some of the people in the Territorial Army. I would emphasise that they take a great interest in the scientific side of military affairs.
The Secretary of State for War mentioned many of the hindrances which have been put in the way of the Territorial Force by various Governments

since the end of the War. There was the taking away of the bounty, the reduction of the establishment, and, of course, the suspension in 1922 of the annual camp. All those actions were perfectly understandable. The Prime Minister said on Monday:
The Services were held by finance as in a vice. They … could not make preparations involving expenditure. They could only live from hand to mouth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 91h March, 1936; col. [1832, Vol. 309.]
If that applied to the Regular Army, Navy and Air Forces, it applied a hundred times more to the Territorial Army. I can imagine the officials in the War Office sitting with the Sword of Damocles of finance hanging over their heads, but I suggest that it was due not only to finance but to the spirit which inspired all Governments in those days, namely, the idea that for 10 years there would be no need for armed forces—and certainly no need for the Territorial Army.
The hon. Member who moved this Amendment referred to the fact that the Government had gone a long way to meet the objections that had been raised. Certainly the restoration of the bounty and the improvement in payments of grants for travelling allowances and so on, and especially the marriage allowance, have removed a great many objections. I would refer to the question of officers' travelling expenses, to which no reference was made, and I hope that the Minister who will reply to the Debate will give me an answer on the point. It may not be generally known that if an officer leaves his ordinary civil employment in London to go to his battery in Sussex, he cannot claim travelling expenses until he reaches the borders of Sussex, whereas an officer who lives 40 or 50 miles away in Sussex can get travelling expenses to his battery if he is travelling on duty. That may seem a small matter, but it inquires to be looked into.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Income Tax, and I hoped that he was proposing to make a concession but he went away from it. The principle seems wrong that if an officer goes to camp or goes to courses to learn his job, his pay should be subject to Income Tax. I am told that there are all sorts of difficulties about this matter, but officers in the


Territorial Army are only civilians, and it seems quite wrong that the small pay received, which only goes to meet their expenses, should be subject to Income Tax as if it were an emolument which they have earned in the course of their business. Hon. Members will recall that officers and other ranks are entitled to exemption from Jury service. That is about the only exemption that the Government make. I suggest that it might be possible to make a similar gesture in regard to the payment of Income Tax in the circumstances I have described.
I will mention another small point in connection with money, and then I will leave the question altogether. Any one who has had command of a Territorial unit knows what a number of small payments are held up because there is no authority for them, or because they do riot come within the Territorial Regulations. If it be possible for the Government to stretch a point in this matter, I suggest that commanding officers be given some small sum each year to spend at their own discretion. That would settle a number of grievances, and would save an enormous amount of unnecessary correspondence. That also may seem a small matter, but it is the pin-pricks of savings which have made, or contributed towards, the big hole in the recruiting returns.
Now I will turn to housing conditions, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in connection with the barracks of the Regular soldier. I am certain that he is aware, as are Members of this House who have to do with the Territorial Army, that many of the places in which the Territorial Army are asked to learn their job are absolute disgraces. It is a difficult matter, because it means increased grants to Territorial associations; nevertheless it is very important. I know of a case in which a battery is trying to learn its work in army huts which are cold and badly lighted. I could give many more instances. I had a case myself a long time ago in which for seven years I fought, and the Territorial association fought, for an improved drill hall. I only bring this case forward because it points a moral. After seven years of fighting we at last got a good drill hall in a prominent position. I would suggest that, if new drill halls are found to be necessary, as they certainly

will be, at any rate in some parts of London, they should, if possible, be put in prominent places. A good building has a wonderful publicity effect, and would be of considerable assistance, as it was in my case, not only in getting a few recruits, but in getting the unit immediately up to strength.
I have dealt with the financial side and with the housing side; I want now to raise quite a different question in connection with mobilisation. The Territorial recruit is of an inquiring nature, and he wants to know what he is in for on mobilisation. I will not at this moment go into the question of what he is going to do—whether he is going to form part of a cadre or whether he is going to be a key man and get out of it altogether; but a question that is being asked by recruits and potential recruits is, "What will happen to my job on mobilisation? "I hope the Government will be able to give some sort of assurance on that point. To meet the case of a man who gives up his civilian job, or sacrifices his business, on signing for service in the Territorial Army in the event of mobilisation, I would ask the Government, if it is possible, to consider whether some form of insurance could not be effected for those who sign on before mobilisation, so that their job or their business might be compensated for if they lost it by being sent to foreign parts.
I want next to touch on two questions with regard to efficiency and training. If men join the Territorial Army, they look forward to putting up a good show and being efficient, and there is a sentence in the White Paper, which was quoted the other day by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), which had a very strong bearing on this point. It reads:
It is not possible simultaneously to recondition the Territorial Army, but a beginning will be made at once in the task of improving its present inadequate equipment and training.
There is one aspect of this question which I should like to bring to the notice of the Government. We all realise that it is impossible to give the Territorial Army full new equipment, but, if the Territorial Army has nothing but old equipment, it does create an inferiority complex. I would suggest that, if it is possible, when, say, any new machine gun or field gun is issued to the Regular Army, a sample, at any rate, should be given


to every unit of the Territorial Army, so that they can train their personnel, and anyhow can see this new equipment. Then I feel that this suggestion, which is quite understandable, of an inferiority complex, would be removed. As regards training, I am afraid that Territorial officers and men may have felt rather insulted by the expression in the White Paper:
Improving its present inadequate equipment and training.
I am now referring to the training. As I have been engaged in this business, as I have already mentioned, for the last 25 years, and especially during the last 15 years, I should like to say at once that from my experience I am absolutely convinced that the training during the last six or seven years has shown a degree of efficiency at least 50 per cent. above what it formerly was, and I would at once say that that is very largely due to the assistance and sympathy of those officers and non-commisisoned officers of the Regular Army who have assisted us in our training. But we have still some way to go.
In conclusion, I would only say, as regards the position of the Territorial Army, that we want our status fully recognised. I am certain that Regular officers, right up to the senior officers, all understand the position, but there is a great past of what we might call tolerance to wipe out, and I think it would be of the greatest help if a Territorial serving officer could be attached to the War Office in some capacity, or, if that be not possible, that there should be a panel of serving Territorial officers who would assist in the councils of the War Office, perhaps more actively than the Advisory Council which is there at the moment. I feel that serving Territorial officers, knowing the spirit and feeling that permeates the Territorial Army, could be of great assistance to the Government.
I should like to endorse what the Mover of this Amendment says about an appeal to employers by the Prime Minister. I believe it would have an enormous influence, and, if that were done, and if some of these matters, which may appear to be small but which are really large, were tackled, I do not believe there would be any difficulty about filling up the small matter of 40,000 men required to complete the

establishment of the Territorial Army. It is hardly necessary for me to say that if this were done the feeling would go through Europe at once that the Territorial Army in England was up to-strength and ready, and that feeling would, I am sure, put another nail in the coffin of war.

8.55 p.m.

Major MILNER: I am sure the House will wish me to pay a tribute to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just addressed it for the first time. I feel that he has exercised a very wise discretion in selecting for his first speech a subject of which he obviously has very wide knowledge and experience. I was greatly pleased to hear him say that the Territorials of 1935 were at least 50 per cent. better than they were in the days when I used to think they were pretty good. It is a very reassuring and cheering thought and I very much hope that he is right in that respect. I had not intended speaking in this part of the Debate and I have only risen, firstly because I think a tribute ought to be paid to the Secretary of State. He spoke of differences of opinion between him and Lord Rothermere. I imagine there are very few subjects that the right hon. Gentleman and I would look at in the same light, but I am bound to say he has risen a good deal in my estimation. He showed a most progressive outlook in quite a number of directions. In particular, I was pleased to hear the concessions that he announced in regard to the Territorial Force. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment asked as to the attitude of Members of this party towards that force. I can assure him that we in the present party, as in both the Labour Governments, have at all times supported it. We do not stand for unilateral disarmament and we certainly do stand for what forces may be necessary within the framework of the system of collective security, and possibly even some slight expansion, in one or two respects of that principle.
The second reason why I desired to speak is that the right hon. Gentleman said he would welcome any suggestion from any part of the House. I should like to address myself to one or two points in connection with the Territorial Force. I. do not think it will be gainsaid that for years after the War little or no attention was paid to it and, if a sacrifice had,


to be made, it was the Territorials who had to make it every time. There certainly was a feeling in my day, and I believe is to-day, that being in the Territorial Force is rather playing at soldiering, instead of which, considered seriously, it is a very serious matter indeed. I cannot help feeling that Regular officers in the past—I hope they are better to-day and in some respects I think they are—tended rather to adopt an air of superiority and to look down on the Force. That is much to be regretted. If the right hon. Gentleman has any influence to improve matters in that respect, I hope he will exert it. A striking incident that I recollect illustrates the attitude that was apparent in some quarters. On 10th August, 1914, when my own unit marched out of barracks, there was a crowd outside and someone shouted out, "Look at them. They are a lot of bloody comics." That was the spirit in many quarters in pre-war days, and I am not sure that it has passed away today. We really were not in need of very much training. We were in a position to move off anywhere if we had had the appropriate equipment—in my opinion to move overseas.
There is another question in regard to the Territorials. In many parts of the country they still occupy very old, dilapidated buildings. There are some barracks at Leeds to which I have referred in similar Debates to this, but without result. The building is 100 years old. It was first a private residence and then a girls' school, and for over 30 years it has been a barracks and the headquarters of three or four small units, who all pig in together in the same building and frequently use the same rooms for their various purposes, for the most part no doubt on different nights; but the barracks are dull and dirty and wholly unsuitable in every sense for the purpose. You cannot expect men to take any pleasure in going for one or two evenings a week to train or meet their fellows in the unit in buildings such as that. In my opinion it would be an economy in the long run if a match was put to the building and a new one erected.
If, unfortunately, we had a war, I wonder what would happen to the Territorials. I gather that the present system is that they are to be sent out as reinforcements to Regular units. [Interruption.] I shall be corrected if I

am wrong about that. I hope I am. While I appreciate that it is impossible always to keep Territorial units together, I certainly do not care for the idea of sending out oddments to Regular units. Some better system than that ought to be devised. Are we going to have a new Army set up in case we are unfortunate enough to have another war? In the Great War officers of the new Army who. had only a few months service were sent to France and elsewhere and superseded Territorial officers who had ten times the service and 20 times the experience that the new Army officers had. The Territorials ought to ask and have an assurance on that point. It was frequently the case, as I know in my own experience, that Territorial officers of long experience had to train new Army officers and those same officers superseded the Territorial officers who had had the duty of training them—a most outrageous state of affairs.
One suggestion that I would make is that a Territorial might be appointed Director-General, or at least Deputy Director-General, of the Territorial Force. It would be necessary to pick a man of the right type from those who have served in the Territorial Force. I should like to see one of that type chosen. Such a man would give great satisfaction. If he stood up for the Territorial Force and saw that it had fair play, I feel sure. that it would be a great inducement to. many to join that Force. I hope that these few suggestions will receive consideration by the Secretary of State for War.

9.6 p.m.

Major ASTOR: A few days ago the Goverment announced that they would. give every encouragement to the recruiting and efficiency of the Territorial Army. The most heartening speech which the Secretary of State for War made to-day shows that they mean it, and that they regard the Territorial Army not only as important, but as a vital factor in their defence scheme. No one, surely, could regard the Territorial Force as an aggressive force. They are a most peace-loving collection of individuals, but they have a very fine conception of a citizen's duty. At great sacrifice of their spare time and leisure, they try to make themselves capable of defending their country, if need be. Yet it is fair to say that during the last few years they have been made to feel that the country as a whole did


not particularly care whether they were efficient or up to establishment. I do not for a moment suggest that the Secretary of State for War and his colleagues or their predecessors in office have been unsympathetic or unconcerned in the matter. We all recognise the difficuitles which have faced them, but the War Office and high military authorities have been sympathetic and ready to help in any way they could.
The attitude of the Regular towards the Territorial has changed very considerably in the last few years. He now regards him as a true comrade in arms. The Territorial has appreciated these things, and has been encouraged by them, but it is not military encouragement of which I am thinking. We are discussing the citizen army, and a potential Territorial soldier is surely far more likely to be impressed and influenced by the attitude of the general public, of his employer and of his friends. He expects the soldier to say that the country needs more soldiers, the sailor to say that it needs more sailors, and the scoutmaster to say that it needs more scouts. Has any Member of the Government not connected with the Service Departments told the country that service in the Territorials is a very high form of citizenship and that the country generally needs such services? Has he suggested that it merits public appreciation and recognition just as much as any other form of service? I think my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment rather bears out my point that that has not been done. We are now anxious, and rightly anxious, to bring the Territorial Army up to strength. It is true that they have a long way to go, but I would suggest that in their task they need not be unduly worried by the shortage of numbers which exists at present. What steps, in recent years, have they taken to remedy this shortage? Now they are going a long way towards carrying out the hopes and wishes of the Territorials. I know that much remains to be done in connection with erection of drill halls and in other ways. Have they carried on any organized publicity, among employers for instance? It has not reached me. By writing for it, I did obtain a pamphlet which gave some facts and figures about the Territorial

Army, but I do not think it would have persuaded anyone to join. The Secretary of State has now announced some most important and welcome improvements in regard to pay, allowances, and conditions. I should like to congratulate him on the concessions he has been able to make. They will give pleasure and satisfaction and very practical encouragement throughout the Territorial Army.
It is not only a financial question. Surely, private service also comes into it. We are all proud of the great leisure that we enjoy in this country, and in return the country gets a wonderful amount of voluntary service. There is nothing like it in any other part of the world. An appeal which is justified by reason and by logic is not often made in vain. The "Daily Mail" has been focusing the attention of the Press on the importance of the Territorial Army. The Press generally have always supported the principle of the Territorial Army, and I have no doubt that newspapers of all shades of opinion will continue to do so if the need is pointed out to them. Some employers give one or even two weeks' holiday. Some have been giving it for some time. It is not possible for all firms to do it. Some are in favour of their employés joining the Territorial Army, but enthusiasm in some cases is short-circuited by the head of a department or a foreman who has different views on the subject. But many employers certainly do take an active personal interest in the Territorial services of their employés, and obviously their approbation is very welcome. If an employer really does help in this matter, he is rendering a valuable service, and I agree entirely with an hon. Friend opposite that he deserves recognition. For instance, many firms and many employés are proud to use the emblem and cipher granted to them on joining the King's Roll Scheme. The majority of employers, I am afraid, up to now have not. taken any steps to encourage their employes to join the Territorials. I think it is chiefly because the matter has not been brought to their notice. A week or two ago an employer with whom I am associated said, "We would like to help you, but we do not know anything about you. Why do you not send someone along to explain things to us? We promise to


arrange a meeting, and to help in every way we can."
It may well be that the best recruiting agent will be found among the non-commissioned officers and men who, like the happy warrior, can speak from an experience which they do not regret, of the many good friendships they have made and the spirit of comradeship which one finds at its best in the regiment, and does not find anywhere else in the same form. But these great efforts to attract recruits to the Territorial Force would be successful if they had the moral support of the Government. In the South of England, at any rate, it has been increasingly difficult to get recruits for the infantry. The present generation are more attracted by the technical side, the guns, tanks, antiaircraft service and engineers. That is very intelligible, but I think infantry training might be made more interesting than it is. The recruit should feel that he was being trained for the next war, if there is to be one, rather than for the last war. Deficiencies in the most up-to-date arms and equipment must be met in the Regular Army before the needs of the Territorial Force can be satisfied, but it might be possible to give instruction to the Territorials in the weapons they might have to use, even if the weapons do not belong to them and have to be borrowed.
In camp the Territorial has a great deal to learn in a fortnight. He can see the regulars at work, and I know that it has been the practice for some time now for regulars and the Territorial Army, not only the infantry but other branches, to train together. One day in each fortnight would be well spent in showing the Territorial something of the artillery, the tanks, anti-aircraft guns, the trench mortar, and how these various weapons work. He could be told something of the role and the objective of the various component parts of an Army. How many hours has a Territorial infantry man to spend lying flat on the grass opposite a man with a flag, who he is told represents a machine gun, or army corps of the enemy? What does he know about the Division except that he and his friends are expected to take it on themselves? No wonder that sometimes he looks rather discouraged. It might interest

him to know something more about the other cogs in the wheel. The Government are now taking the most practical and helpful measures to attract recruits to the Territorial Army, but I think they could do a great deal more without incurring large expenditure, and I suggest that in their efforts they will be greatly assisted by the co-operation, upon which we know they can count, of the Opposition.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I want to give expression to some views which I know are held by a number of Territorial officers, who have been much discouraged by the lack of interest which has been taken in them during the last few years. I think a tribute should be paid to the self-sacrifice and unselfishness of large numbers of officers and men who for years past have given their time and energy, money and holidays in the most disinterested way simply for the service of their country. Everyone would desire to pay this much-needed tribute to them, and I think they will be encouraged by the statement made by the Secretary of State for War, because of the number of points upon which he is going to make things much easier for them in the future by the concessions he has announced. It is a deplorable thing that the magnificent prestige built up by many of these regiments in the War, should be sinking to a low point. I know there are many who feel that the moment has come when something definite ought to be done. There have been certain key years in the history of the home defence forces. 1859 was one, and 1899, the beginning of the South African War, was another, and then there was 1907, when Lord Haldane initiated the Territorial Force of this country.
In view of the way events are now shaping themselves there is a great deal to be said for the idea that the Prime Minister or some other prominent member of the Government should try to get a move on with regard to the prestige and recruiting of the Territorial Army. The great thing is to make them feel that they are wanted very much indeed, that they are a vital part of the forces of this country, that they are not in the second but in the first line. The question of equipment has been dealt with and it is an important one. It is not very attractive to be treated as children, and to have to train with things which are not up-to-


date obviously is not a good thing. It is clear that, anti-aircraft work is of vital importance to the defence of the country. It cannot be done by old and retired people; it wants young and strong men. This work will not become less onerous, because if we are going to have visits from foreign aeroplanes dropping thousands of soldiers in parachutes, as may well happen, the task of the Territorial Army is going to be a serious one.
But the main point is the exact purpose for which the Territorial Army is going to be used in future. I think it is going to be very difficult in the future history of this country to get a united people to go in for the same kind of all against all national war as in the case of the War in 1914. On the other hand, if you are able to convince the people of this country that they are being asked to join in a collective effort to maintain the peace and order of the whole world, including ourselves, they will respond, and be glad to make all the sacrifices they can make for such an end. The Secretary of State has put it in moving words to-day, and if the same appeal could be made for recruits I believe it would have great effect. I know there are some who, trained in an older school, do not feel that appeal. The national appeal is stronger to them, but the younger generation, I believe, will be much more influenced by the solemn words used by my right hon. Friend when he put it so admirably in his speech.
I believe it is thought that a good deal more might be done by giving encouragement to officers in the Territorial Army to take staff courses, and that some who have gone through such courses are not used in the most effective way. There are officers who, apart from the ordinary duties of the Territorial Army, are willing to give up their week-ends and holidays and attend such courses. There is a staff course run by London University which lasts for two years and is held on two evenings per week. The Secretary of State may consider making the cost of that, which is £25, if not a free grant, at least something which is much less. For the expenditure of a. small sum of money you can do a great deal in encouraging knowledge of staff work among officers of the Territorial Army. In Canada and the United States a great deal more is

done on these lines than is done in this country. I suggest also that opportunity should be given to Territorial officers to spend three or four days at the Regular Army manoeuvres, and in that way to get valuable experience and information.
I was glad that the Secretary of State made an appeal to employers to grant facilities. I hope the appeal will be accepted widely and generously, but I think the Government will have to bear in mind this difficulty. It is often found that the man who is keen and active as a Territorial officer is also an active man in his business, and you may get a man in an important position commanding his regiment who may be much more important from the national point of view, for example, in control of munitions. It will be necessary to consider each case from that point of view on its merits, and not repeat the condition of affairs which existed at the beginning of the last War when people who had gone away had to be fetched back, and there was considerable disorganisation. Can the Secretary of State give us any information regarding the work done by the Territorial Army Advisory Council? A lot of interest is taken by officers in its work. How often has it met; are the members of it not too old; are they attacking specific problems; and is it possible to indicate the nature of some of the problems they may be dealing with at present? I should like to thank the Secretary of State for the valuable information that he has given us to-day, and I hope that he will study the many suggestions made during the Debate and in due course be able to make further concessions.

9.30 p.m.

Lord WILLOUGHBY de ERESBY: As a serving officer in the Territorial Army I am certain that everyone associated with it must be extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing forward this Amendment and enabling the House to consider the serious plight of the Territorial Army i o-day. My right hon. Friend quoted figures showing that the Territorial Army is seriously below strength and, what is more alarming, is shrinking year by year. It is some 40,000 below peace-time establishment. What makes the position worse still is that, while the Territorial Army is numerically weak, it is expected to undertake


new duties and heavy responsibilities. The liability of the Territorial Army is now not only to act as the first line of defence for our own country, but it is also expected to be available for service oversea and to be able to relieve foreign garrisons. There has never been a time since the War, and recent events in Europe and Debates in this House have emphasised it, when the Army should have that backing which it has had in the past and on which it relies to-day—the backing of an efficient and strong Territorial Army. Everyone connected with the Territorial Army realises that far too large a proportion of its weapons is often imaginary or obsolete. My right hon. Friend said that a large portion of them was represented by flags and wrappings. I hope these are to be replaced by something more practical and serviceable in the near future.
I do not think that the encouragement which one might expect is always given to the Territorial regiments to make themselves efficient. In the case of my own regiment we are extremely fortunate in having the services of some very efficient signallers from the Post Office in Leicester. My Colonel was extremely anxious to make the regiment technically more efficient, and he proposed to purchase at considerable expense to himself a wireless set for these men to operate. A great deal of red tape had to be surmounted before he could obtain permission to do so. When ultimately permission was obtained he was told that on no account was he to use it on a general service wagon because it might scratch the paint or do harm to the wagon. That is small encouragement to officers who by private effort and enterprise seek to make their regiments more efficient.
I would also ask my right hon. Friend to consider the point which was raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Sevenoaks (Colonel Ponsonby). I apologise for hitting the nail on the head again, but we have been told that this is the way to get things done. I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether it would not be possible to have some representation of the Territorial Army in the War Office. I believe I am right when I say that the Territorial Army is the only technical branch of the Army which has no such representation to-day, and I cannot help

feeling that if a liaison officer with special knowledge of the habits and requirements of the Territorial Army were appointed, much of the friction which at present exists between the Territorial Army and the War Office would be avoided. There would also be better co-operation between the Regular Army and the Territorial Army.
I would like to give the House two illustrations to show how I think this appointment would be of benefit to all concerned. This year my own regiment is being sent to a brigade camp at a place where rumour has it—if the rumour is unfounded, I apologise for making the statement—that the main characteristics of the district are the amount of barbed wire and bogs, a district which is wholly unsuitable for the movement of cavalry. Rumour also has it that the nearest cinema is a 2s. 6d. bus drive from the camp. I am sure the Financial Secretary will appreciate that this has not acted as a very great stimulant to recruiting this year, nor will it be a very great stimulant for next year. I feel that if a liaison officer were appointed somewhat on the lines I tried to indicate, he would be able to show the desirability of sending yeomanry regiments to places where there exists adequate recreation for their leisure hours and where, as cavalry regiments, they can train to the greatest advantage.
There is another example I would like to give. It has been advocated that men in the Territorial Army should attend special technical courses; but if those courses are attended and pay is received, then pay is not forthcoming during the annual training. I think anyone who has served in the Territorial Army will agree that this is an impossible arrangement. I feel that if there were a liaison officer he would be able to show that it is desirable that there should be these special courses and that the only possible way to run them would be to have them in conjunction with the annual camp, so that men and officers could attend them during the afternoons. I have mentioned two examples, but I think hon. Members may be able to give many others in support of my suggestion. These examples are small in themselves, but when taken together they constitute a


fairly substantial grievance; and I think a great deal could be done which would be of benefit to the Territorial Army if it were allowed representation in the War Office.
Before leaving the question of efficiency there is one other point I would like to mention. I would ask my right hon. Friend whether, in cases where we are able to recruit over and above our requirements, we should not be allowed to do so. It may sound rather paradoxical at this moment to mention such a thing, but in my own regiment we are up to strength. From personal experience I know that in the yeomanry, with the small troops which we have the following situation sometimes arises. When the time comes to attend camp, there are one or two who cannot go because of sickness, or because they cannot get away from their jobs. On arriving at camp there may be one or two on the sick list. Another man does not come on parade because of night guard. Then on field operations probably one man has to be detailed off to hold the horse of the visiting general. Perhaps two have to be sent off as runners with messages. All in all, by the time the visiting general arrives to inspect the disposition of the troops and asks, in appropriate military language, "What is that man doing there standing by himself?" it has to be explained that that man is a light automatic section. I would ask my right hon. Friend whether, when we can recruit over and above our strength, we ought not to be given a chance to do so.
I would like now to say a few words about recruitment, which is, I think, one of the most serious problems which has to be tackled in the Territorial Army at the present time. I know that certain concessions have been made in the past with a view to encouraging recruiting and I know that some very considerable concessions have been made to-day by my right hon. Friend. Indeed, much of the thunder has been taken out of many of our speeches by his concessions, and we are all extremely grateful to him for what he has done. I think the restoration of the £5 grant for proficiency will be a very real benefit and assistance. Another concession which was very welcome was the lowering of the age at which grants may be drawn for a marriage allowance. Far be it from me

to advocate the policy put forward by various dictators in Europe to-day to ensure a sufficient military strength in years to come, but I do feel that a man who is stout-hearted enough and public-spirited enough to join the Territorial Army is just the man we should encourage to marry early, for he seems most likely to provide the best stock for the future.
There is one concession which I would have wished to hear my right hon. Friend was prepared to give. I feel there ought to be some alteration in the law concerning the Territorial soldier who is unemployed. Often an unemployed Territorial soldier will not go to camp because if he does so he loses his unemployment benefit. I would ask whether my right hon. Friend could not see his way to give another concession at some time on these lines. Although the concessions that have been made are very welcome, I would ask my right hon. Friend whether he could not do something to raise the whole status of the Territorial Army in the eyes of the country. To get recruits to-day it is not enough simply to tell the Territorial soldier what a jolly good fellow he is and to the employer that you look to him for loyal co-operation; nor is it possible to satisfy the public by telling it that the whole question is receiving careful consideration. I feel that something vigorous must be done and that some action or scheme is necessary with a view to putting the Territorial soldier in a privileged position. I suggest to the House that the Territorial soldier deserves to be placed in such a privileged position. He undertakes his responsibilities entirely voluntarily, and more often than not he sacrifices the whole of his annual holiday so as to attend camp. All his drill in the intervals between camps has to be done in his spare time in the evenings. For these reasons alone he places himself on a definitely higher plane of citizenship than the ordinary person. The same thing applies to the employer. It is impossible to run the Territorial Army without the willing co-operation of the employers. The employer who encourages his men to join the Territorial Army is a national benefactor and should be regarded as such. I have heard many schemes suggested whereby the Territorial Army could be put in a privileged position. There is one scheme which I would mention in passing, and that is


that for every four years cycle of service of the Territorial soldier he should get his old age pension one year earlier. As regards the employers, in order to encourage them, they should be allowed to place the wages of the men in their employ who serve in the Territorial Army against their profits which are assessed for Income Tax purposes.
The Territorial officers should be allowed some rebate, at least, on the pay they receive from the Territorial Army. At the present time we pay Income Tax on the pay we get during the camp, but I think that practically every officer spends more on his troop than the actual amount he receives in pay. I have not figures at my disposal to show how much these or any other schemes would cost, but I ask my right hon. Friend not to turn them down simply as the flippant suggestion of a mere back bencher but to receive them in the spirit in which they are made, and that is the spirit of one who wishes to see the Territorial Army receive the treatment it deserves and also wishes that the country should have the Army that it deserves.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. STOURTON: All those who are interested in the Territorial Army will be grateful for the concessions which the Secretary of State has been able to make. The increase of the bounty to £5 will act as a brisk stimulus to recruiting, while the marriage allowance to men below the age of 26 will also help in the same direction. By increasing the messing allowance for officers my right hon. Friend is the first Minister for War for many a long day who has appreciated the fact that Territorial officers are not necessarily super-tax payers. For far too long the Territorial Army has been the Cinderella of the defence forces, and succesive Governments have competed with one another in starving it in every direction.
If I might do so with becoming modesty, I would like to make a few simple suggestions which may help in improving the training and efficiency of Territorials. I would call attention, first, to the grave deficiency in drill halls and miniature ranges. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Colonel Ponsonby) has already made some allusion to the question of drill halls. Speaking from personal experi-

ence I do not hesitate to say that the lack of sufficient drill halls is nothing less than a scandal. In my own humble command in a country area in Norfolk I have only one drill hall, which was erected after much strife two years ago on about the worse site that could be selected, in an inaccessible position and on damp ground. In the small town where I have my company headquarters there is no drill hall at all. That is a state of affairs which ought to be remedied without further delay. With regard to miniature ranges I would suggest that it should be laid down that all ranges should be enclosed and provided with electric light. At the present time there are very few of this kind, but many open ranges, which means that they cannot be used in the winter because of the cold and because they are not electrically lit for night firing.
When one takes these facts into consideration, what surprises me is not that the Territorial Army to-day is 40,000 below establishment, but that there is any Territorial Force at all recruited on a voluntary basis. I would point out that drill halls, apart from being used as training centres, are most useful from the point of view of securing recruits. Between the training seasons they are used by the men for social purposes, and on such occasions many of their friends are attracted and numerous recruits are thus obtained. Another complaint that I would make concerns the niggardly travelling allowances made to Territorial officers. One or two hon. Members have already mentioned this subject, but it cannot do any harm to go over the ground again. Many officers live, perhaps, 100 or 150 miles from their training centre, and they can only obtain travelling allowance for a comparatively short part of the distance that they cover. Recently warrants for officers travelling on duty have been issued at third class instead, as formerly, at the first class rate. That is rather a pettifogging economy. Again, the mileage allowance for cars has been cut down. I do not think I am wrong in saying that an officer using his car to-day does not recover more than 25 per cent. of the cost incurred. We are, I am afraid, a long way from realising the aspiration which my right hon. Friend expressed when he said that he hoped the time had now arrived when officers would not be out of pocket for the services they rendered to the Territorial


Army. Those who suffer most from the reduction in the car allowance are Territorial adjutants, who have to travel as much as 2,000 or 3,000 miles a month, and are consequently heavily out of pocket.
Another subject to which I would draw attention is the physical standard demanded of recruits. I have been making inquiries at the War Office, and have received some information which is rather disquieting. The percentage of rejections on medical grounds in 1913 was 26.6 per cent., but last year it had increased to 32.8 per cent., and in view of the fact that the physical standards have been slightly modified during that period an alarming state of affairs is revealed. The chest measurement has been slightly reduced as one example of the concessions which have been made in regard to physical standards. Since pre-War days the cost of our social services has increased by no less than tenfold, to £500,000,000. Personally, I am not one of those who grudges that increase, and indeed I do not suppose that a single Member here grudges it, but I think we are entitled to expect value for our money. I cannot say that we have had it, when we find that, after spending these vast sums, the percentage of rejections is steadily increasing. I respectfully suggest that my right hon. Friend might well consult with the Minister of Health on this question. Once again, thanking the Minister for what he has done, I conclude by hoping that this is only the beginning of better things to come.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. KIMBALL: I desire to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley). I propose to deal only with three points concerning the Territorial Army. I speak as a Territorial and as a member of my county Territorial association. The Amendment deals with recruiting and there is one paragraph in the White Paper which has not been referred to yet, but which is of real importance in relation to the recruiting question. That is paragraph 33 which reads:
The Territorial Army, though generally regarded as the second line in our military forces, actually provides the first line in anti-aircraft and coast defence at home. It is recruited on the basis that it will be ready to serve wherever it may be needed,

and if the Regular Army should require support abroad, the Territorial Army will be called upon to give that support, serving not as drafts but in its own units and formations. It therefore holds an important place, in our defence organisation, and it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to do all that is possible to encourage its recruiting and increase its efficiency.
That is important both as setting out the responsibilities of the Territorial Army and answering a number of questions which have been raised with regard to the use of the Territorial Army if it were mobilised. It answers questions which have troubled Territorials, both officers and men, as to whether, if they were mobilised for service, they would be used as members of their own units or sent as drafts to the Regular Army.
A great many suggestions have been made to my right hon. Friend this afternoon. He said he did not rule out suggestions, even if they were revolutionary, and there are two which I would put to him. He said that the Territorial Army had not received the encouragement which it ought to have received. Is it not possible that it is not a question of encouragement, but of the fact that the Territorial Army has not been understood or the reasons why men join it appreciated? I suggest that their motives are mixed. They are partly motives of patriotism, partly the motive of interest in the work, and partly because it is a hobby for gain. In any case it is not a game and it is not a permanent full-time profession. Therefore, I think that the Territorial Army wants recognition and not reward and, if that fact is appreciated by the War Office, I believe the difficulty of recruiting will be partially solved.
Something has been said about the conditions of service. The concessions which have been announced on the bounty and the marriage allowance go a long way to meet the points raised. The question of drill halls and equipment has also been raised. I do not wish to waste time in going into that, but, on the question of the appointment of Territorial Army advisers to assist the Director-General, I would ask my right hon. Friend to remember two replies which he gave me recently. I asked him on 13th February about the appointment of a Territorial Army officer to assist the Director-General and advise him from the Territorial Army point of view. His answer was that an


advisory committee had already been set up for the purpose of keeping the War Office in touch with the Territorial Army and, in those circumstances, he said it would be well to defer further consideration of my suggestion. I then asked for the name of that committee and how often it had met. My right hon. Friend answered that question on 25th February. I have, of course, no quarrel with the membership of the committee but I think it important to note that it only met four times during the past year. I suggest the time has come for my right hon. Friend to reconsider the suggestion of the appointment of a Territorial Army officer, because a committee which only met four times in the past year cannot give the Director-General as much information and advice from the Territorial Army point of view as he ought to have or as would be of advantage to the Territorial Army.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Colonel Ponsonby) referred to a matter which I should like to emphasise. That is the question of the Territorial who has been mobilised and, having engaged in war service, is then demobilised and finds that he has lost his civilian job. That is one of the things which acts as a deterrent on recruiting to-day. A great many men do not join the Territorial Army because their fathers or elder brothers, who were among the first to join up in the last War, found when they returned that their civilian employment was gone. That difficulty might be met by a system of insurance. The Government is insured against a great many risks and I would ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not possible to evolve a scheme of insurance for these men. The cost could be borne on the Army Vote and the Territorial would be guranteed that, on his return to civilian life, he would not be any worse off, owing to loss of employment, than he had been before. If the answer is that the risk is too great for the Government to undertake then I say it is too great a risk to ask the individual to undertake.
Lastly, the Noble Lord the Member for Rutland (Lord Willoughby de Eresby) suggested, and I agree with him, that the Territorial should be given a privileged position in civilian life. Another suggestion which I would like to make is that men of the Territorial Army might

be granted exemption from paying National Health Insurance contributions. It could be done in this way. A man's cards have to be stamped only once in six months. If the employer sent those cards to the local adjutant of the Territorial unit to which the man belonged, and if the man was an efficient Territorial and had attended his camps, the adjutant could frank the cards and return them to the employer, who in due course would send them through to the Ministry of Health. It may be said that this would involve excessive cost. At the present rate of contribution I think it would come to £4 6s. 8d. per man, but there would be a definite, tangible benefit to the man and to his employer. The man would get the benefit of his National Health Insurance and Old Age Pension and medical services without paying for them, and the employer would have in his employment a number of men for whom he had not to pay weekly contributions under National Health Insurance.
I put that forward as a suggestion, and I hope that when the Financial Secretary replies, I may receive an answer to it. If the objection is that it would not apply to all members of the Territorial Army, I would say that the vast majority of them are subject to National Health Insurance, and those who are not would certainly be payers of Income Tax. Officers and other ranks who do not pay National Health Insurance contributions might receive an allowance on their Schedule E Income Tax, graded in proportion to the number of years which they have served. If that were done, I think you would be giving the Territorials a definite advantage and putting them in a privileged position which would make the joining of the Terrtorial Army a popular measure and aid employers in allowing their men to join up.
I think that if some such definite action were taken to show that the Territorial Army is recognised, recruiting would improve, and they would be worthy of the responsibilities laid upon them, as stated in the White Paper. If further concessions and recognition can be given them, if, in other words, the Territorial Army in future is to receive a fair deal and encouragement, I think the recruiting difficulty will be solved and we shall have again, as we have had in the past, the best and cheapest civilian army and second line of defence, but as it is to-


day, owing to a lack of that encouragement, we are not getting that. I think the right hon. Gentleman used the right words in his speech, and I ask that further steps should be taken to give that encouragement which we have not had in the past few years.

10.9 p.m.

Colonel BALDWIN-WEBB: I think the Secretary of State ought to be thanked on behalf of the Territorial Army for the very generous treatment he has given to that Army to-day. I am sure the House and the country will appreciate his attitude very much and that the result of these concessions will be to bring up the strength very considerably. We also thank him for the very helpful way in which he has presented his Estimates. I should like to mention a matter which would be of little cost, but which might help recruiting enormously. I think a National Service Roll might be established of those employers who are prepared to recognise or to give facilities to those men who are willing to join the Territorial Army. Many men refrain from joining at present because they do not know the attitude of their employers, and if such a Roll could be established and kept, I feel sure that the men would know that, by joining up, they would not risk anything on the part of their employers. That should not cost very much, but it would be a great help, and I urge upon the Secretary of State to consider seriously something on these lines.
The Territorial Army is one of the best investments the country has, because it gets through a vast amount of voluntary work for very little cost. Unless it is supported and kept up to strength, we might have to face a problem whereby we may have to defend our country by other means, but if we can continue to use the Territorial Army, it will be for the general interest and cheaper and far better all round. Therefore, I hope the country will respond to the concessions which have been made and that the strength of the Territorial Army will be brought up.
I think it is generally realised that in the Midlands and the North men join the Territorial Army more easily than in the South and that recruiting is better. I am, therefore, sorry to see the proposal to do away with the North Midland

division, and I would like my right hon. Friend to consider retaining that division as it is.
It is proposed in that area to form anti-aircraft defence units, and these should be formed in addition to retaining the old North Midland division. I had the honour to visit a unit in the South only a week or two ago, and I realised how very hard it is get recruits. I, therefore, suggest that we might retain all those units that we can in the North if we want to carry on our recruiting successfully. Once more, I wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War for his speech.

10.12 p.m.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Everyone who is interested in the state of the Territorial Army must feel that this has been a day of great encouragement, and I know the Secretary of State will forgive me if I refer, even before giving him any thanks, to the attitude of the various Oppositions in this House which have been so considerate of the obligations of the Territorial soldiers and which have shown that, as far as this House at least is concerned, the Territorial Army is lifted above all consideration of party politics. That was clearly demonstrated in more than one speech, and not as a politician, but as one who many years ago joined the citizen army of this country and has always been associated with it since, I want to thank hon. Members of the party above the Gangway and behind me for the very generous tributes which they have paid, showing that there is no party division on this question, as I believe, at all. If there is any, it is a very minute group.
I want to ask the House to consider, not the various details which have been so interestingly presented, but whether we should not seriously consider the fact that our foreign policy at present has no relation to our military power. That is a point which I desire to stress. We are all aware that owing to the thought of the times the Territorial Army, like the other Forces of the Crown, has suffered very grieviously from an intense campaign of propaganda in the country against the idea of any armed forces at all, and the same forces who have so ruthlessly opposed any recruiting for the forces of the Crown, are those who have


been urging the strongest possible action against Italy and Japan. It is not for me to explain how you can advance the policy of disarmament and discouragement of the various Forces with general militancy in foreign affairs.
I am concerned, however, to warn the House that while we have been taking a very strong line in foreign policy, and have, indeed, at moments been somewhere near to war events, our skeleton military machinery has not been in such a position that it could really be put in motion. At the time of the Great War, as the House will recall with pride, we had a small Regular Army, but a very effective one at that, which undoubtedly saved the Channel ports. In addition, we had a considerable Army Reserve of seasoned troops immediately available to fill gaps; we had a Special Reserve, that is, the old Militia, although no one realises that it was the same force under a different name, of 60,000 or 70,000 men; and over and above that we had the Territorial Army with a strength of something like 340,000. In our present position we find a very different state of affairs. The. Regular Army is not only down on its establishment rather seriously, but we have since the Great War disbanded 21 battalions of infantry and also some regiments of cavalry, even before others were mechanised. We have a smaller Reserve, he Militia has been completely disbanded, and the Territorial Army, the only remaining force that we have now behind the Regular Army, has a strength of only 128,000 men, which is 52,000 below establishment.
We have less than half the Territorial Army that we had at the time of the War. This is due, as has been frankly confessed from the Front Government Bench and other quarters of the House, to the fact that we have, year after year, starved the Territorial Army; we have deprived it of its paltry bonuses, bounties and training allowances; it has been railed at by certain portions of the country, and discouraged by certain branches of the churches. In consequence, it has lost a considerable measure of its vitality, and, because of its lack of strength, it cannot be as efficient as it ought to be. Now that we have heard on all hands such tributes to the. work of the officers and men of the Territorial Army, I hope that the proposal of the Mover of the Amendment will be listened

to and that we may have not only the Prime Minister, but leaders of all parties in this difficult time, appealing to employers of labour to do everything in their power to release their men and let them go to camp. I hope that we shall establish the principle once and for all that no man who does that great service to the country shall suffer in any way.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think it would be advisable to appeal to employers to employ those who were engaged in the last War?

Sir H. CROFT: I am afraid that it would not be in order to discuss that now, but hon. Members will know how warmly I approve of that sentiment and how I have done everything in my power to persuade employers to do that. I do not think there has been any general disposition among employers not to employ those who were engaged in the late War if they are fitted for the work. We are now at a time of great national emergency, and I do not think we can help it by going into what happened in the past. I think the Government would not go far wrong and would have the country behind them if they were to declare here and now that should such a terrible event as another war take place they would insist that at the conclusion of it every man should receive his employment back in the firm that he left to fight for the country.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: That was promised before.

Sir H. CROFT: But there was never any ruling of the Government that it had got to be done. I desire to offer a warning on another subject. We have heard a great deal from every quarter of the House of the great need for mechanisation in every department, and I am going to urge, before we pass from the subject of the Territorials, that that is not the whole of the question. Although it is vital to have modern scientific appliances in order to pave the way to victory, you can never win a war unless you have trained infantry soldiers. In the last resort the trained and disciplined soldier is the man who has to mop up, to consolidate, and to subdue the infantry soldiers of the enemy. I am in no way belittling the need for every mechanical device to make the task


of the infantry soldier easy, but I can well remember the first lesson of the tanks. It was found that the tanks would go on and the enemy infantry merely disappear into cellars and ditches, and then up they would come and shoot the remaining forces coming along. You may take your infantry soldiers as near as possible to their objective by tanks, or take them by air, as I think will be largely the case in the days to come, but you must in the end have men trained for the fulfilment of the sole military objective, which is to disarm the enemy, and you are never going to do that with chauffeurs, mechanicians or others not trained for this decisive military purpose.
Reading the papers one finds that some people imagined that tanks and aeroplanes would subdue the Abyssinian army and completely defeat it in about a fortnight, but in spite of the fact that the Abyssinians had no anti-aircraft protection and no anti-tank equipment it was three corps of infantry who finally took the great position which the Italians have now reached and are consolidating. We should take lessons from events as they come. The other great Powers of the world, all of them, believe in a mighty man-power behind their mechanical devices. In the last year Germany has raised her conscript Army to over 500,000 men, and I think it is generally admitted that she has some 3,000,000 men behind who are fairly trained; and I have even seen her unemployed marching to their work with shovels at the slope, as efficiently trained as any civilian soldiers that we have ever seen. Italy has 1,250,000 men actually mobilised at the present moment. France, by her two years' service system, has greatly increased her number of effectives. So also with Russia—and here, no doubt, I shall have the attention of some of my hon. Friends above the Gangway. Soviet Russia had an army of 800,000 men, which has been increased by half-a-million, and as we heard the other day from the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) Soviet Russia also has a colossal reserve. The House may take it as an absolute fact that Soviet Russia has by far the largest peace-time army in the world, and a larger number of reserves, who have been through some form of military training, than any country in the history of the world. These

are facts which we have to recognise. Against all that we have an increase in our own Army of four battalions, which is 4,000 men.

Mr. CROSSLEY: The Territorial Army is not being increased to that extent.

Sir H. CROFT: I do not think any increase of the Territorial establishment is mentioned in the White Paper. The whole of the infantry increases in the White Paper indicate only four additional battalions. That being the case, we have to face the fact that the Territorial Army has a total actual strength at this moment of 130,000 men. Of that number, there are only 99,000 Territorial infantry soldiers. One cannot, even as a private Member, state the actual facts on this occasion, but they are too serious lightly to be passed by. All our lips are to a certain extent sealed. [Interruption.] Yes, they are. I know that things are getting safer every day, but we have been near a terrible danger, and we must do all that we can to stimulate this sole defensive force that we have. We have no right to allow our people to offer their lives, unless we see that they are properly equipped with the greatest power that we can give them to defend their lives if, unhappily, they are drawn into war.
I should have liked to comment on one or two suggestions that were made. I notice that hon. Gentleman were inclined to laugh at the idea of transporting troops by air. We have only the Territorial Army in this country behind the Regular Army which, as everybody knows, is very much attentuated. Suppose that Ruritania—it is not advisable to talk about any particular foreign danger—were to bring 1,000 aeroplanes here, each with 20 infantry soldiers, and, after landing a total of 20,000 infantry soldiers, those machines returned to their base and came back with another 20,000 on the same day. Have we any force in this country that could possibly deal with those 40,000 men, or possibly, 120,000 in six days? Hon. Gentlemen may say that I am talking nonsense, but I can only reply that I am saying this with great sincerity. During the War we dare not let the whole of our military machine be used because we were afraid of an invasion of this country. If that invasion was possible by sea, in which case their communications were going to be cut, why is it not possible by air?
I remember sending, in 1917, a Memorandum to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff urging that we should consider this precise idea of building 1,000 aeroplanes and landing 20,000 fighting men behind the German guns while our artillery men were assaulting the German position. I believe that that would have been an even greater surprise than the tanks. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen are laughing, but let me tell them that within six years of the conclusion of the War quite a large number of troops were being brought from Egypt to Palestine at almost a moment's notice.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Baronet is getting rather far away from the Motion.

Sir H. CROFT: I apologise, Sir, but I always find that these Debates lead me to endeavour to cut and thrust. The moral I was trying to point is on the supposition that there were a sudden air invasion of this country to land troops. the Government may say: "There is no power in the world with 1,000 carriers of 25 men each," but our information has been very incorrect these last few years. It is not more difficult to build 1,000 machines with which to land in this country troops to oppose whom you would only have your Territorial Force than it was secretly to build, say, 1,000 or 1,500 fighting planes in a certain country not very far away in the last few years, without the Government knowing anything about it. I am sorry if I have looked a little ahead—I am not so reactionary as some of my hon. Friends —but I feel that, when we are considering the future of the Territorial Army, our only force behind our attenuated Regular Army, we have to visualise any possibility that there may be of invasion, and we have to see that our country is once more safe, as for centuries it has been.
Unless we do everything in our power by good will and by effort to bring the Territorial Army at the earliest possible moment up to strength, we are failing in our duty in the most elementary precaution. I should like to remind hon. Gentlemen that some of them—not all I think—may say, "We do not want a Territorial Army, because we believe in collective security." We are always talking about collective security in connec-

tion with the Territorial Army and the Regular Army, but surely collective security means that all of us have forces which collectively are going to act together, and it really is a sham, if you believe in that policy, to exclude this country from taking any part in that collective policy which you are enjoining upon every other country in the world.

Major MILNER: What amount of force?

Sir H. CROFT: That we are entitled to know. No country in the world that is going to take any sort of part in this collective effort can produce such niggardly forces as we are capable of producing at the present moment through our Territorial Army and our Regular Army. I am quite convinced that, if you are sincere in your collective belief, you have to contemplate the possibility that you may have to put armed soldiers into the field alongside some small country in the future, and if you exclude that from your purview, and say that the Territorial Army or the Regular Army shall never take part in any such collective effort, you will not be regarded as sincere in your intentions by those 45 small territories which may take part in such an effort. As one with some considerable experience of the Territorial Army, I thank the right hon. Gentleman from the bottom of my heart, and I know that every serving soldier in the Territorial Army will be equally grateful, because the right hon. Gentleman has provided exactly those remedies which I believe are most earnestly required by the whole of the members of that force.

10.34 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WILLIAM ALLEN: I have listened with great pleasure to the Debate to-night, and I want to say that, from my experience in France and Belgium of the British Territorial units, no finer force can be found in the British Army. Wherever we met them they were very sympathetic, helpful and useful units. I seem to have heard a few years ago the cry of "Your King and your country need you." From the speeches I have heard to-night with reference to the Territorial forces in England, it would appear as though the cry has been, "Your King and your country no longer want you, because you have been neglected."


If you want to revive any of the forces of the United Kingdom may I call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the old militia battalions of Northern Ireland? All you have to do is to sound the alarm there and you will get as many men as you want. They will come voluntarily. You will have no need of conscription. We had some of the finest regiments in the War. The right hon. Gentleman has asked for suggestions and I suggest that if you really want men to make up the deficiencies in your forces. You have disbanded some of the regular battalions of Northern Ireland. If you want men you could resuscitate them. There is a good deal of complaint about your forces not being up to strength. A poor woman came to me and said her husband had died. The doctor who attended him said that undoubtedly death was due to war service. How frequently we hear of the Ministry saying to these poor people, "Not attributable to war service." How they know is a mystery to me. I only mention that as one reason for the deficiency in recruiting. They are fearful lest the same thing should happen again. Now that you are crying for recruits, you should give them the assurance that they will be well treated if they enlist.

10.39 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir Victor Warrender): I should like to say how exceedingly grateful I am to my hon. Friends who have moved and seconded the Amendment for drawing attention to a subject upon which the general public is not nearly so well informed as it should be, having regard to the importance which we at the War Office attach to it. Few people outside Army circles and those closely associated with the Territorial Army fully realise what a very responsible role this force will be called upon to play in the event of war. A great many people are entirely unaware that the whole of the anti-aircraft defence of this great city, as far as it concerns the ground, will lie upon the shoulders of the Territorial units and our coast defence too is a responsibility placed upon the same shoulders. Furthermore, if and when our Regular Army has to proceed overseas on active service, it will be the task of the Territorial Army to support that force not with drafts, as one hon. Member was anxious about to-night, but

with their own entities and as an entirely separate force.
In view of this general and regrettable ignorance, I sincerely hope that the Debate this evening, following upon my right hon. Friend's introductory speech, will bring home to the nation, and particularly to the young men, the realities of the situation. Before I deal with the various points raised in the Debate I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) on his very admirable speech this evening. My hon. Friend indulges in an unusual but very attractive hobby of tying fishing flies, a difficult art. To-night my hon. Friend has tied a particularly neat pattern and cast it over my right hon. Friend and myself, and I can assure him that he will find us very willing to rise to his fly. We hope he will have similar success in other pools beyond this House. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Colonel Ponsonby) is a distinguished officer in the Territorial Army and therefore speaks with authority on the subject that is before the House to-night. May I also congratulate him on his excellent maiden speech, and I hope the success that he has achieved will encourage him to take further part in the debates in future.
The Debate has covered a great deal of ground, many points have been raised, and a great many suggestions have been made, so I hope that it will not be thought that I underrate the importance of them if I do not reply to them all. It would be impossible for me to do so within the compass of a reasonable speech. On the contrary, we do more than realise the importance of these matters and the extent to which we shall have to rely upon the Territorial Army in the event of a great national emergency. We desire to seek the co-operation not only of Members of this House, but of employers and all sections of the community outside in our determination to bring this force up to strength and to that high standard of efficiency which is the tradition of the British Army. The hon. Member who originated this Amendment referred to the position of the anti-aircraft units. It is true that one of our most urgent requirements is to gel these units, which have already been formed, up to


strength. The defence of our civil population and property against hostile aircraft must necessarily occupy a foremost position in our defence system. I feel sure, after the speeches which have been made to-night, that men who live in and around London, the most valuable and perhaps one of the most vulnerable aerial targets in the world, will not be slow to realise their responsibilities and will come forward and offer their services.
In this connection there is one matter on which I should like to give the House some information. Hon. Members will see from the Memorandum that in the coming autumn we propose to convert certain units in the North Midlands for anti-aircraft defence. It has now been decided that the division to be disbanded to supply these units shall be the 46th Division. This division has been selected mainly because of its geographical situation, but I should like to stress the point that this decision does not mean that all the units of the 46th Division will become anti-aircraft units. At the moment I am not in a position to specify which actual units will be selected for this duty. I fully appreciate that this decision will be a sad blow to those who are at present, and have been in the past, closely connected with the 46th Division, and I can assure them that it is with deep regret that the decision has been reached. No Territorial Army division has a finer fighting record than the 46th; in fact, the division has the distinction of having captured more prisoners in one day on the Western Front than any other, and no division has a higher reputation for its efficiency in peace. I feel sure that the country and the Army Council can rely on the loyalty of all units in this division which will be selected for this duty to carry out their new role in accordance with the splendid traditions of the division.
I hope that service in these anti-aircraft units will not be regarded as of secondary importance. It is very natural that a man should feel that he would rather join a unit part of whose task will be, in the event of war, to proceed overseas to reinforce the Field Force, than one which is definitely detailed for home defence. But, let it not be forgotten that success in future wars will depend as much upon the ability of the nation to

withstand attack from the air as upon the valour of its armies in the field, and to suppose that service in these anti-aircraft units will be anything in the nature of what is called a "cushy job" is entirely to ignore the possible and probable development of modern warfare. Most emphatically I say that we in the War Office regard these anti-aircraft units as of primary importance, and it must be remembered that, should we unfortunately find ourselves embroiled in any European war, these anti-aircraft units may be the very first to come into action. They will, therefore, be expected to attain the very highest state of efficiency. Unlike other units they will have no interval in which to get ready for active service, and, moreover, should the anti-aircraft units of the field force require support and reinforcement it is to the Territorial Army units that we shall have to look to train and provide personnel for those reinforcements.
I do not propose to-night to go in great detail into the many suggestions which have been made from all sides of the House, but I can assure hon. Members that all these suggestions will be very carefully considered by the Department, and that we are not only open to suggestions but are only too glad to receive any assistance we can which will help us to create interest in the Territorial Army and to improve the recruiting position. The attitude of employers has been referred to. A great many employers are at the moment exceedingly helpful to us. To them we are most grateful. Others, I am afraid, are not so good, but I sincerely believe and hope that the publicity which has been given to this subject to-night will bring those who have been a little slack in this direction hitherto to a different point of view, and I look forward to a greater degree of co-operation. I certainly hope that all employers will read the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dover (Major Astor). If they follow out the precepts which he enunciated this evening I am quite sure that we shall see a change in this direction.
The hon. Member who seconded the Amendment had a whole heap of suggestions to make, as was only natural from one who takes a great interest in a Territorial unit. He raised the ques-


tion of Income Tax on the pay of Territorial officers and wondered whether something could not be done to give them a rebate. The reason why Territorial officers pay Income Tax on their pay is that the pay is pay. Just as we have to pay Income Tax on our salaries as Members of Parliament and Ministers, who are paid the miserable pittances they are paid, so it is in the natural sequence of events that Territorial officers should pay Income Tax on their pay. He referred to the question of drill halls. I am afraid that I am only too well aware of the state of some of these drill halls. We are taking a certain amount of money in these Estimates to put that right, and it will be seen from a study of the White Paper that large sums are to be devoted in the future to this purpose. We are conscious of the position and hope to see an improvement. He referred also to equipment for the Territorial Army. There is no extra money being taken in these Estimates for increased equipment for the Territorial Army, but again a study of the White Paper will show that when the Supplementary Estimates come along to provide for the expense of the defence programme comparatively large sums will be devoted annually to the re-equipment and training of the Territorial Army.
One hon. Member asked whether something could not be done to improve the status of the Territorial Army. I hope that some of the things I have said to-night will create in the minds of the public an increased realisation of the importance of the Territorial Army. In the eyes of the Army Council the Territorial Army holds an important position. Although the suggestion that there should be a Deputy Director-General of the Territorial Army at the War Office in the person of a Territorial officer has not been put into practice, we have, as hon. Members interested in the subject know, recently brought into being the Advisory Council, which consists of young men who are full of initiative, who take a great interest in the question and who may be counted upon constantly to represent the interests of all sections of the Territorial Army to the Army Council. If, however, we find that this does not work satisfactorily we are prepared to try a further experiment, and perhaps, as the hon. and

gallant Gentleman suggested, to have a Deputy Director. One of the difficulties would be that a Deputy Director would have to be a person prepared to do whole-time work, and as hon. Members know, most of those interested in the Territorial Army are not prepared to devote the whole of their time to it.

Mr. KIMBALL: I apologise for interrupting, but as I raised the point to which the hon. Baronet is referring, I would like to ask him why the Advisory Council has met only four times since it was appointed, and whether this is as good as would be a full-time Deputy Director of the Territorial Army?

Sir V. WARRENDER: I cannot say off-hand why the Advisory Council has met only four times, but one must not judge its efficiency by the number of times it meets. I have no reason to suppose that the interests of the Territorial Army have suffered because there have been only four meetings of the Council. Perhaps I might add, since it is not generally known, that the Territorial Army occupies a great deal of the time of one of the Ministers at the War Office. The Noble Lord the Under-Secretary of State has as his special charge to look after the Territorial Army, and, in fact, the Territorial Army has a Minister almost entirely to itself. The Noble Lord devotes almost the whole of his time to the interest of the Territorial Army, so that if the Territorial Army has no deputy director-general, it has at any rate what is considered the next best thing, a Minister practically to itself.
I would like to say a word or two about the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-East. Leeds (Major Milner). His was a particularly helpful speech and I welcome his attitude towards the Territorial Army. If his speech represents the general spirit throughout his party and throughout those who send his party to this House, I feel we have friends there, and I certainly hope that the spirit which he enunciated to-night and the example which he gave will be followed by his colleagues and by those who support them in the country.
There are many points to which I could refer. Many of the suggestions that have been made involve financial considerations. All I can say is that we must be grateful for that which we have. The concessions—although I think that is not


the right word since it implies bonuses given by an unwilling Minister—the bonuses which have been granted will in a full year cost over £400,000, so that hon. Members will see that we have been able to provide a good deal of finance. If we are able to do more in the future in this direction, we shall be only too pleased. In conclusion, I would like to say that we do realise the great debt which we owe to this unique voluntary force, whose members devote a large amount of time to their training. We sincerely hope that, combined with the efforts of hon. Members in this House and of employers' and employés' organisations, we shall be able, as a result of the publicity which has been given this year, to create sufficient additional interest to attract to the Colours or to the Territorial Army the men whom we require. Our whole security and the whole of our defence force must in the end depend upon the sufficiency and efficiency of the personnel. My right hon. Friend has given a clear indication to-day that he is prepared to play his part in looking after the interests of the Territorial Army, and I have no doubt that the country will not only follow his example but respond to

his appeal for support. I hope the House will now agree that Mr. Speaker should be allowed to leave the Chair.

Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: I should like to put one question to the Secretary of State for War. The Territorials are going to camp this year. Will he give us an assurance that when they go to camp he will dismiss Colonel Margarine altogether from the camps?

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: There is one point to which I should like to draw attention. I think that the time has arrived when the Territorial Army regulations should be recast. The present regulations are almost as difficult to understand as many of the Bills that come before the House. It is time that the whole of the present regulations were destroyed and re-written, and I hope that the Minister will pay attention to that. I will not attempt to-night to bring up the other points that I had in mind.

Question put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

The House divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 108

Division No. 95.]
AYES.
[11.5 p.m.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'burgh, W.)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Albery, I. J.
Courtauld, Major. J. S.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Alexander, Brig.-Gen. Sir W.
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Craddock, Sir R. H.
Goodman, Col. A. W.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Craven-Ellis, W.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Critchley, A.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Apsley, Lord
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Crooke, J. S.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.


Assheton, R.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Grimston, R. V.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Cross, R. H.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Crossley, A. C.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Crowder. J. F. E.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Cruddas, Col. B.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Culverwell, C. T.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Harris, Sir P. A.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Donner, P. W.
Hartington, Marquess of


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Harvey, G.


Blindell, Sir J.
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.


Bossom, A. C.
Drewe, C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Boulton, W. W.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Duggan. H. J.
Holdsworth, H.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Dunglass, Lord
Holmes, J. S.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Dunne, P. R. R.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Eckersley, P. T.
Hopkinson, A.


Bull, B. B.
Edge, Sir W.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Carver, Major W. H.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Cary, R. A.
Elmley, Viscount
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Jackson, Sir H.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Entwistle, C. F.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Errington, E.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.


Channon, H.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Everard, W. L.
Keeling, E. H.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Flides, Sir H.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Fleming, E. L.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk N.)
Foot, D. M.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Kimball, L.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S. G'gs)
Furness, S. N.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.




Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Patrick, C. M.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Peake, O.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Leckie, J. A.
Peat, C. U.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Penny, Sir G.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Lewis, O.
Percy, Rt. Hon. Lord E.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Lloyd, G. W.
Petherick, M.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.
Pilkington, R.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Loftus, P. C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Procter, Major H. A.
Storey, S.


Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Stourton, Hon. J. J.


MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. Sir C. G.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Ramsbotham, H.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Rankin, R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


McKie, J. H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Maitland, A.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Thomson, Sir. J. D. W.


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Touche, G. C.


Mander, G. le M.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H, D. R.
Remer, J. R.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Markham, S. F.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Maxwell, S. A.
Roberts. W. (Cumberland, N.)
Wakefield, W. W.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wallace, Captain Euan


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)
Ward, Irene (Wallsend)


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Warrender, Sir V.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Rothschild, J. A. de
Wells, S. R.


Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Morris, J. P. (Salford N.)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Williams. H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Salmon, Sir I.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Munro, P.
Savery, Servington



O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Seely, Sir H. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
and Mr. James Stuart.


Palmer, G. E. H.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Potts, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Price, M. P.


Adamson, W. M.
Holland, A.
Pritt, D. N.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hollins, A.
Quibell, J. D.


Ammon, C. G.
Hopkin, D.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Jagger, J.
Ritson, J.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Banfield, J. W.
John, W.
Rowson, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Salter, Dr. A.


Batey, J.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sexton, T. M.


Bellenger, F.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Short, A.


Benson, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Broad, F. A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cocks, F. S.
Lathan, G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lawson, J. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Daggar, G,
Leach, W.
Stephen, C.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Leonard, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dobbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thurtle, E.


Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacLaren, A.
Walkden A G.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Maclean, N.
Walker, J.


Frankel, D.
MacMillan, M. (Western Isles)
Watkins, F. C.


Gardner, B. W.
Marklew, E.
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, G. M.
Mathers, G.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Milner, Major J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Muff, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Groves, T. E.
Naylor, T. E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Oliver, G. H.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Paling, W.



Hardie, G. D.
Parker, H. J. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pethick, Lawrence, F. W.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Charleton.


Question, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Supply accordingly considered in Committee.

[Major LLOYD GEORGE in the Chair.]

NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 158,400, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions (other than Aden), during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937

11.14 p.m.

Major MILNER: I beg to move,
That a number not exceeding 152,400, all ranks, be maintained for the said Service.
I am afraid I shall have to speak at some little length, but I desire to offer a number of observations on this Vote. In the first place, the Minister's Memorandum makes it very clear—in fact, he uses the expression—that his Estimates, which are the highest for 13 years, are for the purpose of bringing our military preparation up to date. The Committee will appreciate that he refers to military preparations, not military forces or military equipment, and I submit to the Committee that that is an indication of the War Office view, which, it appears to me, is that war is inevitable. We on this side take a different view and believe that, particularly at the present juncture, there is a wonderful opportunity, which we hope the Government will take, to ensure, by carrying out the policy we advocate, that recent serious events will result in a reduction rather than an increase in the Estimates. The preparations provided for in the Estimates take the form of increasing the numbers by 6,000 and the sum by nearly £6,000,000. Of that amount, £4,000,000 is in regard to technical units, and I welcome the substitution of mechanical power for man power. There are other features in the Estimate which are not so satisfactory. There is a slight increase in the cavalry.
I take the view, and many authorities take the same view, although I believe that the right hon. Gentleman does not, that cavalry have been obsolete on the Continent of Europe since the Battles of Crecy and Poitiers. In those two battles the English bowmen defeated the armed French knights, and for 500 years cavalry has been obsolete on the Continent and largely so elsewhere. Therefore, there is ample scope for a great reduction in the cavalry arm. It costs twice as much as the Tank Corps, and the money which we are discussing to-night might be far better spent in the provision of more tanks and a reduction of man-power than in keeping up the present establishment of cavalry. How many tanks do we possess? As far as I can make out, the number is in the neighbourhood of 200. I should also like to know whether the

War Office propose to build many more. Military authorities take the view that the tank is the arm of the future for the Army. The difference that tanks made in the casualties in some of the battles of the Great War was amazing. When no tanks were used, as in the battle of the Somme, the British casualties were about 60,000 on the first day. On the first day of the battle of Amiens, when we had 415 tanks, our casualties were under 1,000. In 1917, at the third battle of Ypres, when we still had a large number of tanks, our casualties on the first day were 83.
I submit that the fact that we are building—and I hope we shall continue to build —tanks ought to result in a considerable reduction in our infantry strength. The curious thing is that notwithstanding all this mechanisation, the infantry remains at the same strength or, rather, there is a reduction of one in the numbers. I do not know whether we ought to congratulate the Minister on that fact, but I submit that those numbers could be further reduced. The best authorities—outside the War Office at any rate—say today that the presence of infantry in mass invites defeat, and I think a recognition of that fact by the general public is probably one of the reasons for the difficulty in recruiting to-day. The right hon. Gentleman, in his opening speech, advanced an argument in favour of the infantry. He spoke about their increased mobility, said that they might be moved by aeroplane and dropped by parachute. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, What is going to happen to them when they have been dropped, unless they have protection of some kind? You cannot drop a battalion over an area of some miles in isolated units of five or six men. They would be decimated from every point of the compass. The whole idea is perfectly impracticable.
The Minister is a young man and I feel sure that he will, from his experience, agree, at any rate up to a point, with the next view I am going to advance. I should like to ask the age, and I do so without offence, of the military members of the Army Council. As I go through the Army List I see that the Army seems to be clogged with senior officers. About one officer in every 20 is a general or has equivalent rank—is a brigadier-general or a full colonel. Junior officers have no or little oppor-


tunity of promotion. All these senior officers are for the most part, living in pre-war days, though I am bound to admit, in fairness to the right hon. Gentleman, that some advance was apparent from his speech to-night. One result of having, to a large extent, "the old gang" at the War Office is that there is a good deal of what, for want of a better expression, I term an anti-social atmosphere or feeling in the Army, and particularly among the officers. In the Army generally there is no freedom of expression and no opportunity for initiative. To my own personal knowledge no suggestion for improvement is welcomed, though again I pay a tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, who asked for suggestions to-night; but among the senior officers suggestions are not welcomed. Officers and men learn their own particular job in particular units. They are never allowed to move or to think outside those units. The various corps are segregated, they hardly mix with each other. They are not considered as part of one whole, as the Navy or the Air Force, they are considered as separate members of their own particular corps or regiment. There is a dull, rigid uniformity over the whole of the Army, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do something to get rid of.
To turn to the subject of recruiting. In plain language the Army was 10,000 men short in 1935. I regret it because I believe there are many men unemployed to-day who might be better employed and better looked after, I am sorry to say, in the Army. What is the reason for the difficulty of recruiting? One reason is that the great majority of people have had enough of war and want peace. A great number of them also think, with us, that the Government's refusal, in the last four years, to "seek peace and ensue it," may lead this country into another war. If the right hon. Gentleman's ideas about infantry are carried out they think they may be sacrificed again. There is another reason. How many of the promises made to officers and men have been carried out by the War Office and the Government, in spirit as well as in the letter? The Committee will forgive me, I hope, if I read a letter which I have received, and which I am sure hon. Members will hear with regret that such things should happen in this country. The letter is

from the widow of an officer who died only a month or two ago and she says that she comes of an Army family. Her father and mother went all through the horrors of the Indian Mutiny and there are two grandsons at present serving in the same regiment, making the fifth generation serving in one regiment. She says:
My father served in the Punjab before the Mutiny… He was at the siege of Delhi and was awarded the medal for distinguished conduct in the field. He and my mother had a family of ten, six boys and four girls; five of the boys entered the Army when old enough and three out of his four daughters married soldiers. Eighteen members of the family served in the Great War, two corning from Canada and two from Australia.
She goes on to say that when the War Office received notice of the death of her husband,
the Paymaster-General requested me to send back the unused vouchers for his pension, which I did. I could never understand him only getting a warrant officer's pension of £23 0s. 4d. a quarter.
He had served for 26 years.

Lord APSLEY: Would this not be more in order on Vote 13?

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: My impression is that the hon. and gallant Member is merely using this as an illustration.

Major MILNER: Yes, Sir, it is an illustration. Her letter goes on to say that her husband's commission was a permanent one. She now finds that position was a temporary one and she says that she holds the parchment of his Air Force commission. He served both in the Artillery and the Air Force, and he went all though the war. She writes:
Should not I get a pension for the rank? Should I not get the pension of the rank he retired with?… I always understood from my husband that did he predecease me I should get a pension, and it has been a severe blow and shock to be told that there is none forthcoming.
I am 59 years of age, worn out with nursing my husband day and night since November last till his death, besides doing all household duties as well—housework, cooking and washing—because we could not afford help… We were trying to buy a little house on a mortgage, but had to sell it for what we gave for it, as we couldn't keep it up with the heavy expenses of his illness. I am left to face old age on a pittance of 10s. a week, widow's pension under the National Health Insurance scheme, for which my husband paid… I have no family, so have no one to look to.


She says:
I am receiving, and am very thankful for it, some grant from the Officers' Association, and am most grateful for their help, but it is not my pension, which I could look for regularly, and which would be such a source of ease to me in my old age. We were all brought up to give our best to our King and country, and this is how our King and country treat us.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider this and a hundred other cases of the same kind. As he knows, in one category alone there are nearly 2,000 officers now who are only receiving pensions as warrant and non-commissioned officers, and not as officers, and this category of men were in the past the backbone of the Army. They were then, and would be now, if they were properly treated, the best recruiters the right hon. Gentleman could have, but how can they be expected to assist in this way when they and their wives and children are treated like this. I suggest that the greatest thing the right hon. Gentleman could do for recruiting would be to give some measure of justice to these men or their wives. In the case of officers it might cost £80,000 or £90,000 a year, or to make compassionate allowances to their widows perhaps £10,000 or £20,000. The right hon. Gentleman is spending, under this Vote, £3,500,000 a year on pensions, and I suggest that he might well look into this question sympathetically. It would pay, from a recruiting point of view, to do so, and I urge him to reconsider the Government's attitude on this matter. It is because the majority of my friends who are associated with me do not think the Government have any appreciation of the real situation in these and similar matters that I move to reduce the Vote.

11.34 p.m.

Sir E. GRIGG: I should like, in the first place, to thank my right hon. Friend for the admirable and lucid statement which he made this afternoon. It seemed to me to be a model, both in substance and in form, of what such statements should be. I should like to thank him in particular for the explanations which he gave on a question which concerns many of us deeply—the question of the expeditionary force. He gave us an argument in favour of the re-creation of such a force which seemed to me to be unanswerable. I agree with him that it is absolutely impossible to suppose that

we can at any time declare that we shall never fight on the Continent of Europe again. The developments of war are purely temporary. He very truly said that the Low Countries are more important to us now than even they have been throughout the past. I am sure it is also true that the youth of the country, if such a situation arose, would never be unwilling to play their part. We must seek to avoid being dragged once again into a war of position on the Continent, and the force that we should design should be in reality' an expeditionary force intended for the purpose which that name signifies, action on the flank, action against communications, action in some other area, and not necessarily a force to be drawn from the very beginning, as our force was almost automatically in 1914, into the main struggle on the Continent.
If that is to be our policy, I think it can be made perfectly clear without suggesting in any way that we are not going to give full support to those seeking to maintain and build up an adequate system of collective security, and it is most important that we should select and prepare the instrument most likely to secure a rapid decision, and would be the best check to the gambler in Europe who may think that his chance has come for a quick war and a rapid decision snatched while those who are anxious to preserve peace are still not quite awake to the dangers of the position. I think that the creation of such a force to act instantaneously is vital to any real system of pooled security, which is what we are trying to establish. I believe also that it would be by far the greatest deterrent that we could create to war. Our object, in the first instance, is not to win a war, but to prevent war if possible. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's argument that in modern conditions, changed as they are, our best contribution to that purpose will be a miliary force, but I think it is very important to realise that, since conditions have changed from the Haldane days, we really have to consider two separate needs.
It is fox this reason that I criticised the reference to it in the White Paper the other day. We must have some emergency mobile reserve for the reinforcement of garrisons throughout the


Empire. That is the kind of need that we have recently met in Egypt, and we have met it in India. It requires a mobile reserve of a special kind, but I very much doubt the kind of mobile force being suitable for taking part in a quick European war. What you need for a European war is a more highly trained, and certainly a more highly mechanised force, capable in particular of operating in close country. Again, the force that we maintain for other purposes must be a force that can operate in open country, and the technical problems involved are quite different in the case of these two forces.
Since we have to consider those two kinds of forces, a, mobile force to reinforce garrisons overseas and an expeditionary force to take part in a European war, we have very largely to go into the question as to whether our present system of recruitment is going to give us what we want. It may do so, but the difficulties of recruiting are very great indeed at present, and it is doubtful whether you can raise men for both these purposes on the old system of linked battalions and the service terms that are laid down under this Vote. It seems to me that we may have to consider a shorter service system for the purpose of a European expeditionary force. It would give us our highly trained army for that particular object, and also create a much more highly trained reserve.
I have only made these observations to elucidate what I tried to say rather hastily in the debate the other night. I will end by once again thanking the right hon. Gentleman for having dealt with this point so clearly and well. He brought out the fact, which was not clear in the White Paper, that we are to have an expeditionary force, and since we are to have an expeditionary force, I hope that when we come to vote on the requirements of the White Paper itself, we shall be given some further elucidation of the manner in which this expeditionary force is to be raised.

11.41 p.m.

Lord APSLEY: I am afraid that I must join issue for a moment or two with the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner). He

appears to have stopped at the Battle of Crecy and not to have heard of cavalry in Marlborough's campaign, in the Peninsula War, at Waterloo, in Egypt and in other countries in the British Empire. Apart from that, there was also cavalry engaged in the first German war. Cavalry, though not used in siege operations in France and Salonica, consummated the only victories that were obtained in Palestine, Iraq and South-West African and in other parts of the war. In the wars which have happened since the first German war, there have been the functions of cavalry. In Poland and Russia in the war of the Turks against the Greeks, in various parts of South America, and in the existing war in Abysinnia, he will find cavalry given a substantial part to play in all these wars. This is where I join issue with the hon. and gallant Member. The function he mentioned of the Knights in the battle of Crécy was not that of cavalry reconnaissance, but the performing of functions now allotted to tanks. As long as they had those functions in connection with other arms, as long as they did it by surprise and power, they were successful, but once they went on their own and were without the support of other arms that were all-powerful and could beat down any opposition, they fell to the bows of the archers of Crécy. In the same way tanks would fall to the many forms of anti-tank guns and rifles which exist at the present moment. The functions of cavalry are the same as were the functions of cavalry in olden days, and the mechanised forms of weapons are used for the same purpose, but their effects should not be exaggerated. Their purposes are ancillary, and are not alone an effective power by themselves.

Major MILNER: I referred in particular to the Continent of Europe and the Great War, and I notice that the hon. and gallant Member says nothing about that.

Lord APSLEY: That War on the Continent of Europe was in the form of siege warfare, except in the initial stages when cavalry were made use of in retreat, just as during the break through of the Germans in 1918 they stemmed forces that might otherwise have been successful. With the exception of these instances during the campaign in France, the War took the character of siege operations


during which it would be idle to suggest that cavalry would have been of any use whatever.
I beg to detain the Committee while I discourse on one or two technical points which should be addressed to those who are conversant with them.
I agree with him on the question of infantry establishments. It should be laid down once for all, and it would have a valuable effect in recruiting, that the functions of infantry are certainly changing and have changed since the War. The function of the infantry in those days was sometimes to come on wave after wave and by the sheer weight of masses to obtain their objective, or to be crammed into lines of trenches in order to resist the enemy. That sort of thing will never exist again. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) made an effective point the other day when he said that when we went into the late War—the first German War, as it is called—we were surprised to find that some of the factors which we had least regarded as important, such as heavy artillery, machine guns and the Air Force, which had been looked upon as ancilliary parts of the Army before we went into the War, became the deciding factors as the War went on. In any future war we must be careful not to rely too closely on the factors in the last War. It is possible that completely different factors may prevail, and one of those factors undoubtedly will be the increased efficiency and effectiveness of the Air Force.
Owing to the increased volume and activity of artillery and the mobility of artillery, it will be impossible to bring infantry up in anything like the numbers that were employed in the late War. I suggest that in future infantry should be used on a very much smaller establishment in units than they are at the present time. With the invention of the automatic rifle and the increased fire power, which may still be further increased, the numbers of infantry should be very much less. I suggest that a unit of infantry should be three men and one automatic rifle. Three such units would make a section of nine men and one section leader would bring up the total to ten. Three of these sections would make a platoon including a sergeant, a second sergeant and an officer, that would make

a strength of 30 in a platoon, plus two sergeants and an officer. There would be three platoons in a company, which would have a strength of about 100. There would be three companies in a battalion and three battalions in a brigade, which would be, roughly, 1,000, with headquarter staff, plus two machine gun companies and one anti-tank gun company, which would bring the strength of the brigade up to about 1,500. That should be the future establishment of an infantry brigade.
This brigade must be prepared to be moved in any form of vehicle. It must be composed of small, athletic, strong men, capable of carrying weights. But there will be no long, dreary route marches. They must be prepared to be removed by motor car, or any other cross-country vehicle, or by air, as was done in Russia recently. If they were operating in country where cross-country vehicles could not be got along the men might have to be mounted on mules or ponies and conveyed to whatever was the most appropriate vehicle at the nearest convenient point. There will have to be a liberal supply of vehicles available. One of the greatest problems of war in the future, with the existence of mechanised divisions, will be that the supply problem will be increased enormously. A mechanised division alone will occupy 37 miles of road. It will consume an enormous amount of petrol, and then there will be the getting up of all the other supplies.
What they would be in the future it is impossible to say. With accurate long-range artillery and continual bombing from the air the roads would become impossible to use, and the question of how units were to be conveyed and supplied must be considered, and the possibility of supplying troops by air considered seriously. Coming to cavalry, I would suggest that the establishment should be increased. That which we have been working on has been much too low. We were handicapped enormously in the last War; we were trying to do with 15 men what the Australian troops were doing with 50. The cavalry have always been starved in numbers. If it is to be kept efficient and able to work in country where mechanical vehicles cannot proceed, and able to carry out reconnaissance—

Major MILNER: Do it by aeroplane.

Lord APSLEY: Tactical reconnaissance by air is useless. Strategical reconnaissance is not so bad, but it is impossible to tell from the air where the flank of an advance is, where troops are deployed, what form the troops take and what positions they are holding. You can only get tactical reconnaissance by drawing fire. If you are going to retain any cavalry it should be brought up to strength and made efficient. I suggest that as many as possible of the motorised cavalry should be equipped with light tanks. Tactical reconnaissance is essentially the work of cavalry, and not of infantry

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Will the noble Lord explain who did the reconnaissance work during the last two months of the Great War when the German Army was in retreat?

Lord APSLEY: I was in Palestine, but I am told that the infantry did nearly all the work because they could not get the cavalry through owing to lack of support. When they did get the cavalry up, reconnaissance was done by the cavalry.

Mr. HENDERSON: Is it not a fact that the infantry managed very well without using the cavalry during those two months?

Lord APSLEY: I have no doubt the infantry could, but my recollection as a cavalry officer is that any job going, especially night work and reconnaissance, is given to the cavalry, and it is forgotten that the cavalry men and officers require any sleep at all.
With regard to the motorised cavalry, I am glad to see that experiments are being carried out with new forms of vehicles. I hope the motorised cavalry will be supplied with light tanks. I would even go further than that. I think it is time that the army considered whether this segregation of the services is not rapidly coming to an end. I know there are many occasions on which reconnaissance work which is now being done with light-car patrols could be done in half the time and twice as well by light aeroplanes, and I believe the motorised cavalry could very well be equipped with light aircraft, which could do a great deal of reconnaissance work.
Moreover, there is the question of intercommunication, and this could be carried out by light aeroplanes if the wireless

broke down. I do not say these light aeroplanes should fly over the enemy lines, but they could do reconnaissance work from our own side in the same way that motor cars now do it. I think this matter ought to be considered while the motorised regiments are being constituted, particularly in Egypt, where there is nothing for the men to do; I suggest that some of the officers could be trained as pilots of light aeroplanes. An officer could be taught to fly a motor-glider in a few days, and all the officers in the regiment would then be fully equipped for shooting, riding and flying. I believe they should be able to do all that. Every officer, on leaving school, ought to know how to shoot, ride and fly. When I say shoot, I mean with every form of weapon, including machine guns and automatic rifles. This brings me to the question whether the same ought not to apply to the artillery. They ought to be supplied with some new form of light aircraft which can practically hover in the air—not the autogyro, which is expensive, but some light aircraft which could easily be handled by their own personnel.
I would like now to deal with the question of transport by air. In another war, transport by road will be almost impossible. Transport across country, with the wear and tear of the tracks, and the need for overhauling, would probably be impossible for any length of time. I believe the army would have to rely to a very great extent on transport by air, both in regard to supplies and troops. I think the type of machine needed is not the type which is at present used by the Royal Air Force or the civil air lines, but some type which has a cruising speed of seventy or eighty miles an hour, which can carry twenty or thirty people, which is able to land in any field or any place, and to take off in, say, 100 yards. Such machines can be easily made; the aircraft industry can produce them. It is only a matter of producing a sufficiently wide wing span, not minding about speed, which will enable the machine to take off within the length of this Chamber. Such machines would take the place of a great many lorries, because they could fly rapidly backward and forward bringing men and supplies. The Royal Air Force have been training their pilots in the use of machines with a landing speed of 60 to 80 miles an hour, and none of these machines would be able to do this work.


They would have to go back to their base in order to land. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to go into the question whether the aeroplane has not now become an actual air arm, and whether, like a lorry or motor car, it can be used at any time.

12.2 a.m.

Captain GUNSTON: I do not propose to follow the noble Lord into the rival merits of cavalry and infantry. As an infantry officer I should put a little different interpretation on the action of the cavalry in trying to get through the Somme or the Hindenburg line than the Noble Lord.

Lord APSLEY: I was thinking of the hon. and gallant Member's own experience, and mentioned the fact that they did not get up in time.

Captain GUNSTON: If I gave my experiences—I would rather not—they would be less flattering to the cavalry than the noble Lord imagines. It will be wise to remember the magnificent way in which the cavalry have accepted mechanisation. That is of enormous value. I want to say a word in regard to the excellent speech of the Secretary of State for War about the expeditionary force. I agree with the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Gregg). I raised the same point on a private Bill not long ago. The Secretary of State is quite right. It may be necessary to have an expeditionary force to make a surprise landing, but I am frightened of any guarantee being given, to France or any other country, that once an expeditionary force had been sent out that it would grow to the great army we had in the last war. We must make it clear that it will only be an expeditionary force. In the last war we were able to build up that army because we had time and we had the United States making munitions. In the next war munitions will be of paramount importance. The United States might not be in it.
Therefore, one of the great roles this country will have to play will be to make munitions, and it will not be possible for us to build up, even if we had the time, an expeditionary force like we had in the last war. I have often said in the House that the claims for what the Air Force can do are enormously exaggerated. We must concentrate to a great extent on the

Navy carrying out her historical role of slow pressure, and the Air Force its new role of surprise. The Secretary of State talked about the mobility of the Infantry, and I would like to ask him whether any experiments have been made with regard to light rations. I was told this year that some troops which had come back from abroad had been making such experiments, and took rather a pride in being able to march long distances on light rations. The British Infantry always likes good rations, but in mobility it often has to march on light rations, concentrated foods, and so on. I am a little frightened when my right hon. Friend talks about mechanising the first line transport. The noble Lord the Member for Central Bristol (Lord Apsley) has told us that mechanised transport would occupy many miles of roads. If that be a fact, it is alarming because it means that it is vulnerable from the air. I cannot help thinking that if the first line transport is to be mechanised and there is an air raid, it will be very difficult for it to get off the roads into the fields.
With regard to recruiting, I think, as has been pointed out by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) and the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg), that one of the difficulties is the present Cardwell system, but the chief difficulty is foreign service. At present in most regiments the greater part of the service of a soldier will be in India. In the old days, when there were not so many attractions at home, men went into the Army and were sent to India, and perhaps the comparison was not very pronounced. To-day, however, they go to India when they are old enough, and there is very little to amuse them when off parade. While the Army is lacking in recruits the position must get worse. If the Army were increased to quite an appreciable degree it would be possible for soldiers to serve a longer period at home than abroad. It might help to meet the difficulty if, when the soldier has finished his service in India, and before he goes for vocational training, he were to spend six months with his battalion at home. It would give him time to look round and to decide what he would like to be in civil life before taking up his vocational training.
In regard to the attractions of service at home, many questions have recently been asked in the House. My hon.


Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) asked the other day whether the life of the soldier off parade could not be made more attractive and what measures were being taken to that end. My view is that you want strict discipline on parade but the stricter the discipline on parade, the more you ought to try to make easy the life of the soldier off parade. One factor which counts against recruiting is the lack of privacy in the Army life. The long, bare, barrack-room is not very attractive. Even with the increased opportunities now available, it is difficult for the soldier to improve his education. He finds it hard to sit down to work in that bare barrack-room. I understand that at Victoria Barracks, Windsor, an experiment has been made in the introduction of cubicles and it is worth considering whether it would not be possible in the new barracks to provide each man with a small room or cubicle so that he could have some privacy and a place in which to study if he wished to do so. If the soldier's conditions could be made to approximate more to the civilians in that respect, it would be a great aid to recruiting.
I would like to go into the question of every officer learning to fly but time does not permit me to say more than that I believe we shall have to study that possibility. It would be of enormous value if the Army could do its own reconnaissance and contact work from the air. Infantry officers could go to the Air Force and learn to fly and do the contact work for the infantry, while gunners could do the same for the artillery. It would add enormously to the interest of life in the Army and I believe that both the Army and the Air Force would benefit. I hope that in the coming year the War Office will be able to make foreign service a little easier. I do not believe that the short service system will get over the difficulty. You cannot send a young man out to India until he has been a certain time in the Army but it is my opinion that if we had more battalions, so as to be able to give longer service at home than abroad we would get many more recruits.

12.15 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: I rise to deal briefly with one point.

Hitherto we have been led to believe that, in the next war, the people in the trenches will be in the safest place. Unfortunately, our Russian, Socialist, peace-loving allies, have introduced a new danger in the life of the ordinary infantry soldier, who is now, apparently, to be compelled on occasion to jump from an aeroplane, with a parachute. It is no good telling us that we ought not to believe these things. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend has men the recent film which showed no fewer than 1,000 men jumping out of aeroplanes, practically simultaneously. The sky was thick with them. It was like a snowstorm. But the thing was done. Not only that, but they had their own machine guns and they actually landed a light tank from an aeroplane. These are remarkable facts. I am certain the War Office will laugh at them and my right hon. Friend may say that all this is no good. But do not let him try to put that across me. I have been to the War Office and years ago when I suggested that an aeroplane would be a rather good thing in war, I was turned out of the building as a fool. These new ideas have to be examined seriously. I do not criticise my right hon. Friend as being unprogressive but I ask him: Whose job is it to jump out of aeroplanes? Is it the job of the Air Force or of the infantry and, if it is the infantry's job, what units will have to do it?

12.17 a.m.

Sir R. ROSS: I wish to devote myself strictly to the Vote. I feel that my right hon. Friend who is in charge of the Debate has lain out in "no man's land" long enough and I want to bring him back to the question of the Army's strength. We know that it is far short of the maximum and that recruiting is one of the most important problems which we have to consider. After the War, a number of units were abolished, and a vast majority of these were Irish. That followed from the establishment of the Irish Free State as a Dominion but it was not confined to regiments and corps whose recruiting areas were entirely in the Irish Free State. In Northern Ireland, the infantry regiment in whose recruiting district I live, the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers, was reduced from two battalions to one. Although there was no reduction of the territory from which they drew their recruits, as a


consequence of the creation of the Irish Free State. Would it not be a good thing to restore the second battalion, in view of one fact, to which I particularly direct my right hon. Friend's attention? Has he taken note of the areas where recruits are coming forward, and, is he aware that Northern Ireland, in this last year, has had the highest percentage of recruits, in proportion to population, of any part of the United Kingdom? I do not think the fact is generally known to this Committee or to this country. Is this not, therefore, an occasion when my right hon. Friend must reconsider the rather hard decision—one which, I am sure, was hard for the War Office at the time—to halve the strength of this very distinguished regiment, although it had suffered no loss of recruiting territory in the reconstruction which took place. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to consider what I have proposed as, in some sense, a reward to an area which has borne more than its share of recruiting recently. We all know that recruiting is, perhaps, the most vital question which we shall have to consider, this year.

12.20 a.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: I had not intended to intervene in this discussion but I am tempted to do so by some of the interesting speeches we have heard. For example the speech which depicted Russians raining from the sky, presented me with some interesting thought but at this hour I do not propose to pursue the subject. I was interested in a statement made by an hon. Member opposite about the magnanimity and extraordinary condescension of the "crack" cavalry regiments in agreeing to mechanisation. I rise to ask the Secretary of State whether these cavalry regiments have the right to refuse to be mechanised, and whether this same right of picking and choosing will be extended to the ordinary rank and file, say, of the Royal Scots Fusiliers and the ordinary infantry regiments. It is just as well that someone should point out to the various regiments in the Army that there is this difference among them and that a word of encouragement should be given to the rank and file of the other regiments, so that they may take note of the privilege of the more superior branches of His Majesty's Forces.

Captain GUNSTON: I would like to point out that I was not a cavalry soldier. We had a little chaff earlier on, when I do not think the hon. Member was present, and I was paying my tribute to the—use any word you like—the courage, the loyalty, the enthusiasm with which the cavalry regiments had joined in this turn-over.

Mr. STEPHEN: I did not say that the hon. and gallant Member had been in a cavalry regiment. I was simply drawing the attention of the ordinary rank and file soldiers, through this House, to the position that they might enjoy in the Army if they choose to take that line.
Suggestions have been made about how to encourage recruiting and how to make things more comfortable for the soldiers, and I sympathise with the suggestions which have been put forward, but there are ever so many other things. They might be better fed, and I daresay a lot would prefer butter to margarine. But the point I wish to put is that on the Army Annual Bill last year there was revealed an instance of the privilege enjoyed by officers in the Army with regard to elections. Officers may be elected to a county council—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): That matter would involve legislation, and cannot be raised on this Estimate.

Mr. STEPHEN: I thought I should be in order in asking the Secretary of State whether he proposed to introduce legislation. I am not seeking to develop the argument for or against it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot inquire whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to introduce legislation, but can ask whether he is considering it.

Mr. STEPHEN: I am indebted to you, Captain Bourne. I will ask the Secretary of State whether he is considering the extension to the rank and file of the same privilege as is enjoyed by the officers in respect of elections. I would remind him that the Under-Secretary gave a promise that it was to be inquired into and a statement made but so far that promised statement has not been forthcoming. I should also like to know whether the Secretary of State is con-


sidering whether greater liberties should not be extended to ordinary soldiers with regard to citizen rights and joining trade unions. I know that under the law soldiers are entitled to join their trade unions, but I do not think there are adequate facilities for trade union organisers to get into touch with the soldiers in order to show them the importance of joining the unions to protect their rights after they leave the Army. I would like an assurance from the Minister that something will be done in this respect. I thought as many little points were being raised in this Debate, that I would bring forward what are in nay estimate more important points that might be the better for ventilation.

12.26 a.m.

Mr. COOPER: Some hon. Members who have taken part in the various stages of the Debate have made it evident that they were not present in the earlier stages, when many of their points were discussed and dealt with. Perhaps I may begin by answering the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). In reply to his first query, I would say that that grievance, which was raised last year, was, on further inquiry, found to be purely or mainly imaginary, but there was a certain case for improving the Army Annual Act and make it more logical and clear as to what it is always intended to carry out. There is no difference in the treatment which has existed. Although I would certainly be out of order if I were to say that I intended to introduce an Amendment to the Act in the coming year. I can assure the hon. Member that I am considering it so favourably that it is not improbable that I shall. In regard to the right of soldiers to join a trade union, they have that right at present, but I am not favourably considering any extension of facilities in order to increase the number of soldiers who belong to trade unions. I am not convinced that it would be in their interests or in the interests of the Army.
A great deal has been said in the last half hour about this—as some people think imaginary—matter of soldiers falling from the air in parachutes. Some people have expressed doubt about it, but the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) said what I said a great many hours ago, that there actually was a picture of them

doing it. I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) will be convinced, and will think it is a fake.

Major MILNER: I said it was possible.

Mr. COOPER: I said that I did not intend to follow that example or encourage it, but that it was an interesting experiment and might be some indication as to the direction in which developments were moving.
There are only two ways of procedure in preparing for these emergencies. One must rely upon experience or imagination. The last War was experience and we must not forget it. Experiments are taking place which people were sneering at yesterday afternoon. Some friends of Russia are sneering at them. That is imagination, and it may be the opening, the beginning, of the first step to a new phase in warfare. All that I indicated in my original words was that it might be, in the long run, that infantry would become much more mobile than they are to-day. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) asked me to bear in mind the 2nd Battalion of the Ennis-killings. I am well aware of the facts as to recruiting in Northern Ireland and I will bear in mind the considerations he put forward. Then the hon. and gallant Member for Thornbury (Captain Gunston) suggested there is a danger in mechanized transport and that when you got a long line of route you could not, when attacked by aircraft, take safety in the fields. That fact has been largely present to the minds of the people who are responsible for dealing with this matter. It is undoubtedly one disadvantage of mechanized transport to weigh off against the other advantages of mechanized transport, but every precaution is taken to prevent such a disaster as the hon. Member contemplates.
The hon. and gallant Member also asked whether any arrangements could be made for improving the system under which some men spend an undue amount of their period of service abroad, and whether it could be arranged that they should spend the last six months with their unit at home. He will realize that it is an extremely difficult task which lies before the organization at the War Office in arranging trooping every year. It would be extremely difficult to arrange


for one or two men to be brought back to their unit for that particular period. But we do bear in mind the kind of consideration which he put forward, and if anything can be done to improve that particular aspect of trooping I will consider it. The facts which the hon. Member stated about experiments in light rations were very interesting. I think they were carried out somewhere else and not in this country, but I will look into it. I can inform him, however, that we have succeeded in considerably lightening the burden of the infantry which, he may rest assured, is much lighter than it used to be.
Both the hon. and gallant Member and another speaker asked if I would look into the Cardwell system, and see whether it could be reviewed. That matter was raised earlier in the Debate, and I said at the time that I was quite prepared to consider whether the time had not come to review the question. I am glad both hon. Members agree with me that some kind of expeditionary force must exist. When it is suggested that you can have two kinds of expeditionary force, one for Europe and one for warfare in other parts of the world, no one can dispute the logic of that view. Our trouble is that we are in the position of the man who would like to have two motor-cars, one for light work and one for heavy work, one for London and one for the country, but who can afford only one car, and has therefore to choose a compromise which is likely to serve him best for both purposes. The only way in which you can get over the difficulty in connection with having an alternative expeditionary force would be by some alteration in the Cardwell system. Any suggested alteration comes up against the difficulty of finding the troops for the foreign force.
The Noble Lord the Member for Central Bristol (Lord Apsley) did not ask me many questions, but he gave me a great deal of information. I was very much interested by his speech, and will pay the attention which should be paid to the importance of the facts which in so short a time he managed very interestingly to put forward. He questioned, as did several other hon. Members, the mechanization of the infantry and suggested that there were still too many men on their feet. I can only say that the latest steps we are taking this year may

considerably reduce the number of such men. I hope he will agree with me that that is a step in the right direction.
The hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds read a long and sad story. I could not deal with that this evening, because it is a question of widows' pensions and it would be out of order on this occasion. But we all of us get long and sad stories sent to us from time to time, and I rather doubt whether the best way of dealing with them is to read them to the House of Commons, and whether something better could not be done by sending them to the Minister concerned. I very often get communications of this kind which I should be unable to deal with in an official capacity, but in regard to which I might be able to inform the hon. and gallant Member of various charities, such as regimental charities—and this lady seems to have tremendous claims whatever regiment it was—who I am quite sure would be willing, if the facts are as stated, to come to her assistance in some way or other.

Major MILNER: Does not the Minister appreciate that this lady is the widow of an ex-ranker officer and that 335 members of this House approved the claim of the ex-ranker officers, but the Government declined to look into it or to make any concession? I shall be very happy if the Minister will reconsider that decision.

Mr. COOPER: The question of the ex-ranker officers has been raised from time to time, and it was settled by the decision of this House and is not likely to be reopened. That is why I said that I was doubtful whether I could do anything in an official capacity, but that I might be able to make suggestions which would be of assistance to the lady by putting her in touch with people who might be able to help her. Then the hon. and gallant Member said officers and men stuck too much to their own units. That was one of the first matters that I inquired into when I went back to the War Office six months ago, and I am satisfied that tremendous progress has been made in this important question in recent years and in the number of officers who do cross with other units and who move to other arms—from the infantry to the cavalry, from the cavalry to the Army Service Corps, and to the artillery and so on in order


to study every branch of the profession. It is a subject which the Army Council have very much at heart, and are doing their best to help.
The hon. and gallant Member also asked me the ages of the present members of the Army Council. I think that is a most indelicate and improper question to ask me, and one the answer to which I would never give away, but the hon. and gallant Member may satisfy himself as to all the facts by looking them up in "Who's Who". There are only four military members of the Army Council, and whatever their ages are, they are not at all too old to look after their job, and they are most competent members. I was also asked how many tanks we had. We have five tank battalions at home. I think it would be inadvisable to tell the hon. Member

the exact number of tanks. Lastly the hon. and gallant Member said he gathered from my remarks that in my opinion war was inevitable. I can assure him that in my view war is not inevitable, and I should hope it is not the opinion of anybody on this side of the House that war is inevitable. But when we are preparing an army, we must proceed on the assumption that war is going to happen. Otherwise all your efforts would be foolish, and would be nullified if, before commencing, you were to proceed on the assumption that you were not going to have a war at any time.

Question put,
That a number, not exceeding 152,400, all ranks, be maintained for the said Service.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 59; Noes, 149.

Division No. 96.]
AYES.
[12.40 a.m.


Adamson, W. M.
Holland, A.
Sexton, T. M.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hollins, A.
Simpson, F. B.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hopkin, D.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Banfield, J. W.
Jagger, J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Bellenger, F.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Benson, G.
John, W.
Stephen, C.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cocks, F. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Daggar, G.
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dobbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thurtle, E.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker. J. J.


Ede, J. C.
Marklew, E.
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Milner, Major J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Muff, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Frankel, D.
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon, A.
Parker. H. J. H.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Grenfell, D. R.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Potts, J.



Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hardie, G. D.
Ritson, J.
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Mothers.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Rowson, G.





NOES


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Colfox, Major W. P.
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Colville, Lt.-Col. D. J.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Apsley, Lord
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Furness, S. N.


Assheton, R.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S.G'gs)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Balfour Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Beauchamp, Sir B.C.
Cross. R. H.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Crowder. J. F. E.
Grimston, R. V.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Culverwell, C. T.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Blindell, Sir J.
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


BOSSOM, A. C.
Davies, Major G. F. (Yeovil)
Gunston, Capt. D. W.


Boulton, W. W.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Drewe, C.
Harris, Sir P. A.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Hartington, Marquess of


Boyce, H. Leslie
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Harvey, G.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Duggan. H. J.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Eckersley, P. T.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Bull, B. B.
Edge, Sir W.
Holdsworth. H.


Cortland. J. R. H.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Holmes, J. S.


Carver, Major W. H.
Entwistle, C. F.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Cary, R. A.
Errington, E.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Everard, W. L.
Keeling, E. H.


Channon, H.
Fleming, E. L.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)




Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Morrison, W. S. (Cirencester)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Kimball, L.
Munro, P.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Leckie, J. A.
Peake, O.
Storey, S.


Lewis, O.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Petherick, M.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Loder, Captain Hon. J. de V.
Pilkington, R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Loftus, P. C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Procter, Major H. A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Mebane, W. (Huddersfield)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


McCorquodale, M. S.
Ramsbotham, H.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Rankin, R.
Wakefield, W. W.


McKie, J. H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Wallace, Captain Euan


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Ward, Lieut-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Warrender, Sir V.


Markham, S. F.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Wells, S. R.


Maxwell, S. A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Williams, H, G. (Croydon, S.)


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)



Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Rothschild, J. A. de
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Sir Gorge Penny and Dr. Morris-


Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Seely, Sir H. M.
Jones.


Question put, and agreed to.

PAY, ETC., OF THE ARMY.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £10,339,000, lie granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Pay, etc., of His Majesty's Army at Home and abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions (other than Aden), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937.

WORKS, BUILDINGS AND LANDS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,073,000, he granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Works, Buildings and Lands, including military and civilian staff and other charges in connection therewith, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937.

MISCELLANEOUS EFFECTIVE SERVICES.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £926,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Miscellaneous Effective Services, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937.

HALF-PAY, RETIRED PAY AND OTHER NON- EFFECTIVE CHARGES FOR OFFICERS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £3,616,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of Rewards, Half-Pay, Retired Pay, Widows' Pensions and other Non-effective Charges for Officers, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937.

PENSIONS AND OTHER NON-EFFECTIVE CHARGES FOR WARRANT OFFICERS, NON- COMMISSIONED OFFICERS, MEN AND OTHERS.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,607,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expense of the Royal Hospital, Chelsea; of Out-Pensions, Rewards for Distinguished Service, Widows' Pensions and other Non-Effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-Commissioned Officers, Men, etc., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937.

CIVIL SUPERANNUATION, COMPENSATION AND GRATUITIES.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £234,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Expenses of Civil Superannuation, and other Non-Effective Annual Allowances, Additional Allowances and Gratuities, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937.

ARMY (ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORIES). ESTIMATE, 1936.

Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £40,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge (reduced by a sum not exceeding £97,000 to be transferred from the Supplies Suspense Account), which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Expense of the Royal Ordnance Factories, the Cost of the Productions of which will be charged to the Navy, the Army, the Air Force, etc.—[Mr. Cooper.]

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

IMPORT DUTIES (IRISH FREE STATE SPECIAL DUTIES) ACT, 1932.

Captain EUAN WALLACE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I beg to move,
That the Irish Free State (Special Duties) (No. 1) Order, 1936, dated the seventeenth day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Irish Free State (Special Duties) Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said seventeenth day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved.

HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

12.51 a.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: I do not think that we ought to allow this Order to pass without some explanation from the Government bench. I do not think it is quite fair for the hon. Gentleman to move it in this way, but I do not blame him entirely. [Interruption.] The House is invited to pass this Import Duty Order of which it knows nothing at all. This is a revision of an order passed three years ago by a majority of people, many of whom are not now present, for a purely political expediency and not as a matter of principle or of financial urgency at all. We remember that under the 1932 Act a certain sum of money which was believed to be due to this country by the Irish Free State was collected by a duty on certain classes of goods. That was the beginning of a long economic struggle between the Irish Free State and ourselves. The object was quite successful in regard to finance. We did collect the annuities, but it was not a good principle in inter-Imperial disputes. I think the House has learned the lesson from that, but I rise to call the attention to the grave injury which was done to both parties by the economic war.
We all welcome the cordial recognition of the error that was committed when that dispute occurred, and we all welcome the sign of awakening intelligence and good will that has resulted in the agreement known as the Coal-Cattle Agreement. This is the beginning, we hope, of the resumption of free trade between the Irish Free State and ourselves. This order does not go nearly as far as we should like it to go, but there is a revision of the duties in this Order, and we hope it is the beginning of a much larger measure of understand-

ing between Ireland and ourselves. After all, Ireland and ourselves are not two separate countries. We are divided geographically by a strip of sea, but we are two parts of the world which are naturally complementary to each other. Two neighbours are kept apart by these duties which, however necessary they may have been as a means of solving a quarrel that arose, are not necessary at the present time to the Irish Free State and ourselves. I do hope that in dealing with this Order it is not the last word to be said on this matter. I do hope that the two Governments will again reconsider the extreme inter-dependence of the two countries, and will consider the possibility of the abolition of all these special duties which prevent the flow of trade between Ireland and ourselves.
I pay a tribute to those who were able to restore the coal trade between the Free State and ourselves. Fortunately, we have almost regained the loss of the coal trade, but there is a larger measure of trade to be done both in the sale of coal and in manufactured goods. We urge the hon. Gentleman who rose, but did not speak and who was prevailed upon by members of his own party to neglect his duty to the House, that he will be persuaded by those on this side of the House that this is not the last word on the subject, and that we shall not see again in the schedule of duties this ridiculous scale of duties such as on cattle under six months £1 per head, and over six months and under fifteen £2 per head. That is a ridiculous way of doing business between two neighbouring countries. I hope the Government will take this back and bring in a revised Order to abolish all these stupid deterrents and obstacles to trade between the two countries, and that we shall see the hand of co-operation and friendship extended between this country and the Irish Free State and the restoration of free trade between that country and ourselves.

12.56 a.m.

Captain WALLACE: I am sure the House will acquit me of any intentional discourtesy. Having been trained in the hard school of my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Capt. Margesson) I know that if anyone says "Agreed" at this time of night it is not wise to go on talking. I will give the House the object of this Motion in a very


few words. It is to confirm an arrangement of which the House was notified by the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs on 17th February in answer to a Private Notice Question by the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn). It is, in fact, to continue the arrangement by which we export coal from the United Kingdom, and they export cattle from the Irish Free State on a pound for pound basis. From what the hon. Gentleman has said, I gather he has no objection to this arrangement. We hope to do a little more this year, and are going in a direction in which, I think, everybody in this House will wish us to proceed. We are reducing some of those duties to which he has drawn attention. There is a ten per cent. ad valorem reduction on live animals, and beyond that there are certain additional reductions with which I will not trouble the House at this moment. We are also giving to the Irish Free State an increase in their quota of bacon and ham. We are obtaining in exchange for that three definite and concrete benefits. First of all, the continuance of our export of coal to the Irish Free State with the practical certainty that the amount of coal which will be exported this year will exceed the amount exported in 1935. Secondly, we are obtaining a substantial reduction—on the average a 50 per cent. reduction—in the special duties which the Irish Free State have put upon some of our goods; and, thirdly, we are obtaining a quota of one-third of the estimated imports of cement into the Irish Free State for 1936, and we are to be allowed an opportunity of competing for the rest of the trade, subject to the remaining duty of 10 per cent. When I tell the House that in 1931, out of total imports of cement into the Irish Free State valued at £445,000, the United Kingdom exported £367,000, whereas in 1935 out of a total of £450,000 we got only £30,000, the House will realize that this is a valuable concession.
In conclusion, I need only say that it is not for me to-night to engage in argument with the hon. Member about the very careful scrutiny in the mouth which he has given to this gift-horse. No doubt his remarks will be appreciated in the proper quarter. I only want to say that, as the Minister of Finance of the Irish Free State stated the other day, these arrangements indicate a mutual desire for friendly relations in matters of trade.

I do not think anybody in the House will have any doubt that the desire is sincerely reciprocated here, and I hope, therefore, that the House will let us have this Motion.

1.3 a.m.

Sir RONALD ROSS: I should hesitate to address the House at such a late hour in the ordinary way, but I have not the slightest hesitancy in doing so to-night because this is a matter of prime importance to my constituents, and a matter of great importance to the country. This is the first occasion on which it has been possible properly to say anything about this important arrangement. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), expressed his pleasure at the reduction of trade barriers between the United Kingdom and the Irish Free State. I would go further and say I would be prepared to abolish every duty on either side. To my mind, that would be a step for the benefit of Ireland and this country—and I use the term "Ireland" geographically. I think the hon. Gentleman was occasionally a little loose in his use of the word "Ireland." If you were to abolish every duty on either side, I should be quite content, and we should be making a very great step forward.
But I would remind the House that the initial duties put on between the Irish Free State and the United Kingdom were not put on by the United Kingdom but by the Irish Free State and they are much more numerous and affect many more things. This question we are discussing is a sort of bargain. Admittedly, this Order is our side of the bargain and I would like to know what the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Order thinks is the estimate of the addition to the trade of the United Kingdom which will result. I ask that advisedly because two days after this arrangement, Mr. Lemass, who is a member of the Irish Free State Cabinet, gave his estimate as being £750,000 improvement for the trade of the Irish Free State and no improvement for the trade of the United Kingdom. That is obviously something which he said, no doubt, to improve his position with his supporters; but still I would like to have some estimate as to what the Government, who no doubt have made their calculations with care, think will be the consequences of this Order and


of the corresponding removal of restrictions in the Irish Free State.
We have not had to-night a very exhaustive list of the various forms of exports from the United Kingdom to the Irish Free State which will be facilitated as the counterpart of what we are doing for agricultural produce. I would remind the Secretary of the Overseas Trade Department that in all these matters where we are making a bargain with the Irish Free State he should bear in mind that the Government's policy was one of putting duties on Irish Free State goods in order to get our just debts. That produced very serious reprisals, and naturally these reprisals hit the outposts of the United Kingdom. It gives to the Irish Free State in any state of economic struggle between him and the United Kingdom more satisfaction if he is injuring Northern Ireland than if he thinks he is injuring Great Britain. Undoubtedly, this must effect the small traders who have been accustomed to trading across the border, and they have been attacked by all sorts of petty duties, such as the bottle and parcel tax, and those taxes which are aimed at the retail trade rather than trade in bulk.
The aim of the British Government appears to be primarily for coal. Coal is the great export of raw material of this country, and I should like to see it prospering; but there are other things. I want to know whether in making this agreement Northern Ireland was ever consulted as to what measures would have been of assistance to its people in standing the full blast of reprisal duties from the other side, because so far the facilities given to the Irish Free State have all been agricultural and the advantage to the United Kingdom side have been nearly all to heavy industries, such as coal and cement. I should like a considered reply on that matter.
There is one further point—the question of bona fides in making these bargains. If you are going to make a bargain about taking off duties, and more duties are put on the next day, it is not a very good bargain. After this bargain was concluded between the United Kingdom Government and the Irish Free State Government, the Irish Free State proceeded to put on a new lot of duties on British goods. I do not think they

were the same goods; but they were metal and manufactured goods. Is there to be any understanding that when an agreement is made for reducing duties, one of the parties to that bargain may next day put on some other duties on something else, so prejudicing the bargain?

1.10 a.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: I recollect that my colleagues of the Independent Labour party were perhaps the most efficient critics of the then Secretary for the Colonies when the question of these Irish Free State duties arose. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) then wished the Labour party to show a little more interest in the subject and to put greater pressure upon the Government in that connection. In spite of the fact that there has been to-night insistence upon an answer being given, the importance of this subject does not seem to be realised by the Labour party and the Leader of the Opposition. Only seven of them were here when the hon. Gentleman rose, although they have grown to eight since. The hon. Gentleman lectured the Minister. He should have lectured his own party on going home to their beds. There is 75 per cent. of my own party away it is true, but I would point out that our understanding from the Chief Whip of the Labour party was that the Labour party was to let this go. I accept the correction of the Chief Whip of the Labour party and realise that this is like the rest of their opposition—it is only make-believe, and that they are not going into the Division Lobby. I appreciate that this is a step in the right direction. I think that the Minister should put to his colleagues in the Government the need of taking the advice he was given so long ago on this particular subject by the hon. Member for Bridgeton. If he were to carry out that advice to the full it would be an advantage to the two countries. I am hopeful that this beginning from him may give a better feeling and that the injustice that has been done to the Irish Free State will be remedied to some extent in the future.

Resolved,
That the Irish Free State (Special Duties) (No. 1) Order, 1936, dated the seventeenth day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, made by the Treasury under the Irish Free State (Special


Duties) Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said seventeenth day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, be approved.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY (METERS) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Appointment of Examiners, etc.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

1.14 a.m.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: There is a certain difficulty in connection with the City of London and County of London. Negotiations are proceeding and arrange-

ments have been made that if it is necessary to insert anything that will be done in another place.

CLAUSES 2, 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Sixteen Minutes after One o'Clock.